Patrick Kneeland, MD

In 2010, the Journal of Hospital Medicine published an article proposing a “talent facilitation” framework for addressing physician workforce challenges.¹ Since then, continuous changes in healthcare work environments and shifts in relevant policies have intensified a sense of clinician workforce crisis in the United States,^2,3 often described as an epidemic of burnout. Unfortunately, hospital medicine remains among the specialties most impacted by high burnout rates and related turnover.^4-6

Despite efforts to address the sustainability of careers in hospital medicine, common approaches remain mostly reactive. Existing research on burnout is largely descriptive, focusing on the magnitude of the problem,³ the links between burnout and diminished productivity or turnover,⁷ and the negative impact of burnout on patient care.^8.9 Improvement efforts often focus on rescuing individuals from burnout, rather than prevention.¹⁰ While evidence exists that both individually targeted interventions (eg, mindfulness-based stress reduction) and institutional changes (eg, improvements in the operation of care teams) can reduce burnout, efforts to promote individuals’ resilience appear to have limited impact.^11,12

Given our field’s reputation for innovation, we believe hospitalist groups must lead the way in developing practical solutions that enhance the well-being of their members, by doing more than exhorting clinicians to “heal themselves” or imploring executives to fix care delivery systems. In this article, we describe an approach to increase resilience and well-being in a large, academic hospital medicine practice and offer an emerging list of best practices.

Maslach et al. demonstrated that burnout reflects an individual’s experience of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of human interactions, and decreased sense of accomplishment at work.¹³ Updated frameworks emphasize that well-being and lower burnout arise from workflow efficiency, a surrounding culture of wellness, and attention to individual resilience.¹⁴ Emerging evidence suggests that burnout and well-being are, in part, a collective experience.¹⁵ As outlined in the recently published “Charter on Physician Well-being,”¹⁶ this realization creates an opportunity for clinical groups to enhance collective well-being—or thriving—rather than asking individuals to take personal responsibility for resilience or waiting for a top-down system redesign to fix drivers of burnout.

In 2013, our academic hospital medicine group set a new vision: To become the best in the nation by being an outstanding place to work. We held an inclusive divisional strategic planning retreat, which focused on clarifying the group’s six core values and exploring how to translate the values into structures, processes, and behaviors that reinforced, rather than undermined, a positive work environment. We used these initial themes to create 16 novel interventions from 2014-2017 (Figure).

Notably, we pursued this work without explicit support or interference from senior leaders in our institution. There were no competing organizational efforts addressing hospitalist efficiency, turnover, or burnout until 2017 (Excellence in Communication, described below). Furthermore, we avoided individually targeted resilience efforts based on feedback from our group that “requiring resilience activities is like blaming the victim.” Intervention participation was not mandatory, out of respect for individual choice and to avoid impeding hospitalists’ daily work.

Before designing interventions, we created a measurement tool to assess our existing culture and track evolution over time (available upon request). We utilized the instrument to provoke emotional responses, surface paradoxes, uncover assumptions, and engage the group in iterative dialog that informed and calibrated interventions. The instrument itself drew from validated elements of existing tools to quantify perceptions across nine domains: meaningful work, autonomy, professional development, logistical support, health, fulfillment outside of work, collegiality, organizational learning, and safety culture.

Several subsequent interventions focused on the emotional experience of work. For example, we developed a formal mechanism (Something Awesome) for members to share the experience of positive emotions during daily work (eg, gratitude and awe) for five minutes at monthly group meetings. We created a Collaborative Case Review process, allowing members to submit concerning cases for nonpunitive discussion and coaching among peers. Finally, we created Above and Beyond Awards, through which members’ written praise of peers’ extraordinary efforts were distributed to the entire group.

We also pursued interventions designed to increase empathy and translate it to action. These included leader rounding on our clinical units, which sought to recognize and thank individuals for daily work and to uncover exigent needs, such as food or assistance with conflict resolution between services. We created “Flash Mobs” or group conversations, which are facilitated by a leader and convened in the hospital, in order to hear from people and discuss topics of concern in real time, such as increased patient volumes. Likewise, we established “The Incubator,” a half-day meeting held four to six times annually when selected clinical faculty applied design thinking techniques to create, test, and implement ideas to enhance workplace experience (eg, supplying healthy food to our common work space at low cost).

Another key focus was professional development for group members. Examples included a three-year development program for new faculty (LaunchPad), increasing the number of available leadership roles for aspiring leaders, modifying annual reviews to focus on increasing individuals’ strengths-based work rather than solely grading performance, and creating a peer-support coaching program for newly hired members. In 2017, we began offering members a full shift credit to attend the hospital’s four-hour Excellence in Communication course, which covers six high-yield skills that increase efficiency, efficacy, and joy in practice.

Finally, we revised a number of structures and operational processes within our group’s control. We created a task force to address the needs of new parents and acquired a lactation room in the hospital. Instead of only covering offsite conference attendance (our old policy), we enhanced autonomy regarding use of continuing education dollars to allow faculty to fund any activity supporting their clinical practice. Finally, we applied quality improvement methodology to redesign the clinical schedule. This included blending value-stream mapping, software solutions, and a values-based framework to analyze proposed changes through the lens of waste elimination, IT feasibility, and whether the proposed changes aligned with the group’s core values.

We examined the impact of these tactics on workplace experience over a four-year period (Figure). In 2014, 30% of group members reported psychological safety, 24% had become more callous toward people in their current job, and 45% were experiencing burnout. By 2017, 59% felt a sense of psychological safety (69% increase), 15% had become more callous toward people (38% decrease), and 33% were experiencing burnout (27% decrease). Average annual turnover in the five years before the first survey was 13.2%; turnover declined during the intervention period to 6.6% (adjusted for increased number of positions). While few comprehensive models exist for calculating well-being program return on investment, the American Medical Association’s calculator¹⁷ demonstrated our group’s cost of burnout plus turnover in 2013 was $464,385 per year (assumptions in Appendix 1). We spent $343,517 on the 16 interventions between 2013 and 2017, representing an average annual cost of $86,000: $190,094 to buy-down clinical time for new leadership roles, $133,023 to fund time for the Incubator, $2,500 on gifts and awards, $4,900 on program supplies, and $10,000 on leadership training.

Based on the current literature and our experience, hospital medicine groups seeking to improve culture, resilience, and well-being should:

• Collaborate to define the group’s sense of purpose. Mission and vision are important, but most of the focus should be on surfacing, naming, and agreeing upon the group’s essential core values—the beliefs that inform whether hospitalists see the workplace as attractive, fair, and sustainable. Utilizing an expert, neutral facilitator is helpful.
• Assess culture—including, but not limited to, individual burnout and well-being—using preexisting questions from validated instruments. As culture is a product of systems, team climate, and leadership, measurement should include these domains.
• Monitor and share anonymous data from the assessment regularly (at least annually) as soon as possible after survey results are available. The data should drive inclusive, open, nonjudgmental dialog among group members and leaders in order to clarify, explore, and refine what the data mean.
• Undertake improvement efforts that emerge from the steps above, with a balanced focus on the three domains of well-being: efficiency of practice, culture of wellness, and personal resilience. Modify the number and intensity of interventions based on the group’s readiness and ability to control change in these domains. For example, some groups may have more excitement and ability to work on factors impacting the efficiency of practice, such as electronic health record templates, while others may wish to enhance opportunities for collegial interaction during the workday.
• Strive for codesign. Group members must be an integral part of the solution, rather than simply raise complaints with the expectation that leaders will devise solutions. Ideally, group members should have time, funding, or titles to lead improvement efforts.
• Opportunities to improve resilience and well-being should be widely available to all group members, but should not be mandatory.

The healthcare industry will continue to grapple with high rates of burnout and rapid change for the foreseeable future. We believe significant improvements in burnout rates and workplace experience can result from hospitalist-led interventions designed to improve experience of work among hospitalist clinicians, even as we await broader and necessary systematic efforts to address structural drivers of professional satisfaction. This work is vital if we are to honor our field’s history of productive innovation and navigate dynamic change in healthcare by attracting, engaging, developing, and retaining our most valuable asset: our people.

Disclosures

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest/competing interests.

In 2010, the Journal of Hospital Medicine published an article proposing a “talent facilitation” framework for addressing physician workforce challenges.¹ Since then, continuous changes in healthcare work environments and shifts in relevant policies have intensified a sense of clinician workforce crisis in the United States,^2,3 often described as an epidemic of burnout. Unfortunately, hospital medicine remains among the specialties most impacted by high burnout rates and related turnover.^4-6

Despite efforts to address the sustainability of careers in hospital medicine, common approaches remain mostly reactive. Existing research on burnout is largely descriptive, focusing on the magnitude of the problem,³ the links between burnout and diminished productivity or turnover,⁷ and the negative impact of burnout on patient care.^8.9 Improvement efforts often focus on rescuing individuals from burnout, rather than prevention.¹⁰ While evidence exists that both individually targeted interventions (eg, mindfulness-based stress reduction) and institutional changes (eg, improvements in the operation of care teams) can reduce burnout, efforts to promote individuals’ resilience appear to have limited impact.^11,12

Given our field’s reputation for innovation, we believe hospitalist groups must lead the way in developing practical solutions that enhance the well-being of their members, by doing more than exhorting clinicians to “heal themselves” or imploring executives to fix care delivery systems. In this article, we describe an approach to increase resilience and well-being in a large, academic hospital medicine practice and offer an emerging list of best practices.

Maslach et al. demonstrated that burnout reflects an individual’s experience of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of human interactions, and decreased sense of accomplishment at work.¹³ Updated frameworks emphasize that well-being and lower burnout arise from workflow efficiency, a surrounding culture of wellness, and attention to individual resilience.¹⁴ Emerging evidence suggests that burnout and well-being are, in part, a collective experience.¹⁵ As outlined in the recently published “Charter on Physician Well-being,”¹⁶ this realization creates an opportunity for clinical groups to enhance collective well-being—or thriving—rather than asking individuals to take personal responsibility for resilience or waiting for a top-down system redesign to fix drivers of burnout.

In 2013, our academic hospital medicine group set a new vision: To become the best in the nation by being an outstanding place to work. We held an inclusive divisional strategic planning retreat, which focused on clarifying the group’s six core values and exploring how to translate the values into structures, processes, and behaviors that reinforced, rather than undermined, a positive work environment. We used these initial themes to create 16 novel interventions from 2014-2017 (Figure).

Notably, we pursued this work without explicit support or interference from senior leaders in our institution. There were no competing organizational efforts addressing hospitalist efficiency, turnover, or burnout until 2017 (Excellence in Communication, described below). Furthermore, we avoided individually targeted resilience efforts based on feedback from our group that “requiring resilience activities is like blaming the victim.” Intervention participation was not mandatory, out of respect for individual choice and to avoid impeding hospitalists’ daily work.

Before designing interventions, we created a measurement tool to assess our existing culture and track evolution over time (available upon request). We utilized the instrument to provoke emotional responses, surface paradoxes, uncover assumptions, and engage the group in iterative dialog that informed and calibrated interventions. The instrument itself drew from validated elements of existing tools to quantify perceptions across nine domains: meaningful work, autonomy, professional development, logistical support, health, fulfillment outside of work, collegiality, organizational learning, and safety culture.

Several subsequent interventions focused on the emotional experience of work. For example, we developed a formal mechanism (Something Awesome) for members to share the experience of positive emotions during daily work (eg, gratitude and awe) for five minutes at monthly group meetings. We created a Collaborative Case Review process, allowing members to submit concerning cases for nonpunitive discussion and coaching among peers. Finally, we created Above and Beyond Awards, through which members’ written praise of peers’ extraordinary efforts were distributed to the entire group.

We also pursued interventions designed to increase empathy and translate it to action. These included leader rounding on our clinical units, which sought to recognize and thank individuals for daily work and to uncover exigent needs, such as food or assistance with conflict resolution between services. We created “Flash Mobs” or group conversations, which are facilitated by a leader and convened in the hospital, in order to hear from people and discuss topics of concern in real time, such as increased patient volumes. Likewise, we established “The Incubator,” a half-day meeting held four to six times annually when selected clinical faculty applied design thinking techniques to create, test, and implement ideas to enhance workplace experience (eg, supplying healthy food to our common work space at low cost).

Another key focus was professional development for group members. Examples included a three-year development program for new faculty (LaunchPad), increasing the number of available leadership roles for aspiring leaders, modifying annual reviews to focus on increasing individuals’ strengths-based work rather than solely grading performance, and creating a peer-support coaching program for newly hired members. In 2017, we began offering members a full shift credit to attend the hospital’s four-hour Excellence in Communication course, which covers six high-yield skills that increase efficiency, efficacy, and joy in practice.

Finally, we revised a number of structures and operational processes within our group’s control. We created a task force to address the needs of new parents and acquired a lactation room in the hospital. Instead of only covering offsite conference attendance (our old policy), we enhanced autonomy regarding use of continuing education dollars to allow faculty to fund any activity supporting their clinical practice. Finally, we applied quality improvement methodology to redesign the clinical schedule. This included blending value-stream mapping, software solutions, and a values-based framework to analyze proposed changes through the lens of waste elimination, IT feasibility, and whether the proposed changes aligned with the group’s core values.

We examined the impact of these tactics on workplace experience over a four-year period (Figure). In 2014, 30% of group members reported psychological safety, 24% had become more callous toward people in their current job, and 45% were experiencing burnout. By 2017, 59% felt a sense of psychological safety (69% increase), 15% had become more callous toward people (38% decrease), and 33% were experiencing burnout (27% decrease). Average annual turnover in the five years before the first survey was 13.2%; turnover declined during the intervention period to 6.6% (adjusted for increased number of positions). While few comprehensive models exist for calculating well-being program return on investment, the American Medical Association’s calculator¹⁷ demonstrated our group’s cost of burnout plus turnover in 2013 was $464,385 per year (assumptions in Appendix 1). We spent $343,517 on the 16 interventions between 2013 and 2017, representing an average annual cost of $86,000: $190,094 to buy-down clinical time for new leadership roles, $133,023 to fund time for the Incubator, $2,500 on gifts and awards, $4,900 on program supplies, and $10,000 on leadership training.

Based on the current literature and our experience, hospital medicine groups seeking to improve culture, resilience, and well-being should:

• Collaborate to define the group’s sense of purpose. Mission and vision are important, but most of the focus should be on surfacing, naming, and agreeing upon the group’s essential core values—the beliefs that inform whether hospitalists see the workplace as attractive, fair, and sustainable. Utilizing an expert, neutral facilitator is helpful.
• Assess culture—including, but not limited to, individual burnout and well-being—using preexisting questions from validated instruments. As culture is a product of systems, team climate, and leadership, measurement should include these domains.
• Monitor and share anonymous data from the assessment regularly (at least annually) as soon as possible after survey results are available. The data should drive inclusive, open, nonjudgmental dialog among group members and leaders in order to clarify, explore, and refine what the data mean.
• Undertake improvement efforts that emerge from the steps above, with a balanced focus on the three domains of well-being: efficiency of practice, culture of wellness, and personal resilience. Modify the number and intensity of interventions based on the group’s readiness and ability to control change in these domains. For example, some groups may have more excitement and ability to work on factors impacting the efficiency of practice, such as electronic health record templates, while others may wish to enhance opportunities for collegial interaction during the workday.
• Strive for codesign. Group members must be an integral part of the solution, rather than simply raise complaints with the expectation that leaders will devise solutions. Ideally, group members should have time, funding, or titles to lead improvement efforts.
• Opportunities to improve resilience and well-being should be widely available to all group members, but should not be mandatory.

The healthcare industry will continue to grapple with high rates of burnout and rapid change for the foreseeable future. We believe significant improvements in burnout rates and workplace experience can result from hospitalist-led interventions designed to improve experience of work among hospitalist clinicians, even as we await broader and necessary systematic efforts to address structural drivers of professional satisfaction. This work is vital if we are to honor our field’s history of productive innovation and navigate dynamic change in healthcare by attracting, engaging, developing, and retaining our most valuable asset: our people.

Disclosures

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest/competing interests.

In 2010, the Journal of Hospital Medicine published an article proposing a “talent facilitation” framework for addressing physician workforce challenges.¹ Since then, continuous changes in healthcare work environments and shifts in relevant policies have intensified a sense of clinician workforce crisis in the United States,^2,3 often described as an epidemic of burnout. Unfortunately, hospital medicine remains among the specialties most impacted by high burnout rates and related turnover.^4-6

Despite efforts to address the sustainability of careers in hospital medicine, common approaches remain mostly reactive. Existing research on burnout is largely descriptive, focusing on the magnitude of the problem,³ the links between burnout and diminished productivity or turnover,⁷ and the negative impact of burnout on patient care.^8.9 Improvement efforts often focus on rescuing individuals from burnout, rather than prevention.¹⁰ While evidence exists that both individually targeted interventions (eg, mindfulness-based stress reduction) and institutional changes (eg, improvements in the operation of care teams) can reduce burnout, efforts to promote individuals’ resilience appear to have limited impact.^11,12

Given our field’s reputation for innovation, we believe hospitalist groups must lead the way in developing practical solutions that enhance the well-being of their members, by doing more than exhorting clinicians to “heal themselves” or imploring executives to fix care delivery systems. In this article, we describe an approach to increase resilience and well-being in a large, academic hospital medicine practice and offer an emerging list of best practices.

Maslach et al. demonstrated that burnout reflects an individual’s experience of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of human interactions, and decreased sense of accomplishment at work.¹³ Updated frameworks emphasize that well-being and lower burnout arise from workflow efficiency, a surrounding culture of wellness, and attention to individual resilience.¹⁴ Emerging evidence suggests that burnout and well-being are, in part, a collective experience.¹⁵ As outlined in the recently published “Charter on Physician Well-being,”¹⁶ this realization creates an opportunity for clinical groups to enhance collective well-being—or thriving—rather than asking individuals to take personal responsibility for resilience or waiting for a top-down system redesign to fix drivers of burnout.

In 2013, our academic hospital medicine group set a new vision: To become the best in the nation by being an outstanding place to work. We held an inclusive divisional strategic planning retreat, which focused on clarifying the group’s six core values and exploring how to translate the values into structures, processes, and behaviors that reinforced, rather than undermined, a positive work environment. We used these initial themes to create 16 novel interventions from 2014-2017 (Figure).

Notably, we pursued this work without explicit support or interference from senior leaders in our institution. There were no competing organizational efforts addressing hospitalist efficiency, turnover, or burnout until 2017 (Excellence in Communication, described below). Furthermore, we avoided individually targeted resilience efforts based on feedback from our group that “requiring resilience activities is like blaming the victim.” Intervention participation was not mandatory, out of respect for individual choice and to avoid impeding hospitalists’ daily work.

Before designing interventions, we created a measurement tool to assess our existing culture and track evolution over time (available upon request). We utilized the instrument to provoke emotional responses, surface paradoxes, uncover assumptions, and engage the group in iterative dialog that informed and calibrated interventions. The instrument itself drew from validated elements of existing tools to quantify perceptions across nine domains: meaningful work, autonomy, professional development, logistical support, health, fulfillment outside of work, collegiality, organizational learning, and safety culture.

Several subsequent interventions focused on the emotional experience of work. For example, we developed a formal mechanism (Something Awesome) for members to share the experience of positive emotions during daily work (eg, gratitude and awe) for five minutes at monthly group meetings. We created a Collaborative Case Review process, allowing members to submit concerning cases for nonpunitive discussion and coaching among peers. Finally, we created Above and Beyond Awards, through which members’ written praise of peers’ extraordinary efforts were distributed to the entire group.

We also pursued interventions designed to increase empathy and translate it to action. These included leader rounding on our clinical units, which sought to recognize and thank individuals for daily work and to uncover exigent needs, such as food or assistance with conflict resolution between services. We created “Flash Mobs” or group conversations, which are facilitated by a leader and convened in the hospital, in order to hear from people and discuss topics of concern in real time, such as increased patient volumes. Likewise, we established “The Incubator,” a half-day meeting held four to six times annually when selected clinical faculty applied design thinking techniques to create, test, and implement ideas to enhance workplace experience (eg, supplying healthy food to our common work space at low cost).

Another key focus was professional development for group members. Examples included a three-year development program for new faculty (LaunchPad), increasing the number of available leadership roles for aspiring leaders, modifying annual reviews to focus on increasing individuals’ strengths-based work rather than solely grading performance, and creating a peer-support coaching program for newly hired members. In 2017, we began offering members a full shift credit to attend the hospital’s four-hour Excellence in Communication course, which covers six high-yield skills that increase efficiency, efficacy, and joy in practice.

Finally, we revised a number of structures and operational processes within our group’s control. We created a task force to address the needs of new parents and acquired a lactation room in the hospital. Instead of only covering offsite conference attendance (our old policy), we enhanced autonomy regarding use of continuing education dollars to allow faculty to fund any activity supporting their clinical practice. Finally, we applied quality improvement methodology to redesign the clinical schedule. This included blending value-stream mapping, software solutions, and a values-based framework to analyze proposed changes through the lens of waste elimination, IT feasibility, and whether the proposed changes aligned with the group’s core values.

We examined the impact of these tactics on workplace experience over a four-year period (Figure). In 2014, 30% of group members reported psychological safety, 24% had become more callous toward people in their current job, and 45% were experiencing burnout. By 2017, 59% felt a sense of psychological safety (69% increase), 15% had become more callous toward people (38% decrease), and 33% were experiencing burnout (27% decrease). Average annual turnover in the five years before the first survey was 13.2%; turnover declined during the intervention period to 6.6% (adjusted for increased number of positions). While few comprehensive models exist for calculating well-being program return on investment, the American Medical Association’s calculator¹⁷ demonstrated our group’s cost of burnout plus turnover in 2013 was $464,385 per year (assumptions in Appendix 1). We spent $343,517 on the 16 interventions between 2013 and 2017, representing an average annual cost of $86,000: $190,094 to buy-down clinical time for new leadership roles, $133,023 to fund time for the Incubator, $2,500 on gifts and awards, $4,900 on program supplies, and $10,000 on leadership training.

Based on the current literature and our experience, hospital medicine groups seeking to improve culture, resilience, and well-being should:

• Collaborate to define the group’s sense of purpose. Mission and vision are important, but most of the focus should be on surfacing, naming, and agreeing upon the group’s essential core values—the beliefs that inform whether hospitalists see the workplace as attractive, fair, and sustainable. Utilizing an expert, neutral facilitator is helpful.
• Assess culture—including, but not limited to, individual burnout and well-being—using preexisting questions from validated instruments. As culture is a product of systems, team climate, and leadership, measurement should include these domains.
• Monitor and share anonymous data from the assessment regularly (at least annually) as soon as possible after survey results are available. The data should drive inclusive, open, nonjudgmental dialog among group members and leaders in order to clarify, explore, and refine what the data mean.
• Undertake improvement efforts that emerge from the steps above, with a balanced focus on the three domains of well-being: efficiency of practice, culture of wellness, and personal resilience. Modify the number and intensity of interventions based on the group’s readiness and ability to control change in these domains. For example, some groups may have more excitement and ability to work on factors impacting the efficiency of practice, such as electronic health record templates, while others may wish to enhance opportunities for collegial interaction during the workday.
• Strive for codesign. Group members must be an integral part of the solution, rather than simply raise complaints with the expectation that leaders will devise solutions. Ideally, group members should have time, funding, or titles to lead improvement efforts.
• Opportunities to improve resilience and well-being should be widely available to all group members, but should not be mandatory.

The healthcare industry will continue to grapple with high rates of burnout and rapid change for the foreseeable future. We believe significant improvements in burnout rates and workplace experience can result from hospitalist-led interventions designed to improve experience of work among hospitalist clinicians, even as we await broader and necessary systematic efforts to address structural drivers of professional satisfaction. This work is vital if we are to honor our field’s history of productive innovation and navigate dynamic change in healthcare by attracting, engaging, developing, and retaining our most valuable asset: our people.

Disclosures

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest/competing interests.

Hospital medicine has become the fastest growing medicine subspecialty, though no standardized hospitalist-focused educational program is required to become a practicing adult medicine hospitalist.¹ Historically, adult hospitalists have had little additional training beyond residency, yet, as residency training adapts to duty hour restrictions, patient caps, and increasing attending oversight, it is not clear if traditional rotations and curricula provide adequate preparation for independent practice as an adult hospitalist.^2-5 Several types of training and educational programs have emerged to fill this potential gap. These include hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, early career faculty development programs (eg, Society of Hospital Medicine/ Society of General Internal Medicine sponsored Academic Hospitalist Academy), and hospitalist-focused resident rotations.^6-10 These activities are intended to ensure that residents and early career physicians gain the skills and competencies required to effectively practice hospital medicine.

Hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, and faculty development have been described previously.^6-8 However, the prevalence and characteristics of hospital medicine-focused resident rotations are unknown, and these rotations are rarely publicized beyond local residency programs. Our study aims to determine the prevalence, purpose, and function of hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs and explore the role these rotations have in preparing residents for a career in hospital medicine.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving the largest 100 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) internal medicine residency programs. We chose the largest programs as we hypothesized that these programs would be most likely to have the infrastructure to support hospital medicine focused rotations compared to smaller programs. The UCSF Committee on Human Research approved this study.

Survey Development

We developed a study-specific survey (the Hospitalist Elective National Survey [HENS]) to assess the prevalence, structure, curricular goals, and perceived benefits of distinct hospitalist rotations as defined by individual resident programs. The survey prompted respondents to consider a “hospitalist-focused” rotation as one that is different from a traditional inpatient “ward” rotation and whose emphasis is on hospitalist-specific training, clinical skills, or career development. The 18-question survey (Appendix 1) included fixed choice, multiple choice, and open-ended responses.

Data Collection

Using publicly available data from the ACGME website (www.acgme.org), we identified the largest 100 medicine programs based on the total number of residents. This included programs with 81 or more residents. An electronic survey was e-mailed to the leadership of each program. In May 2015, surveys were sent to Residency Program Directors (PD), and if they did not respond after 2 attempts, then Associate Program Directors (APD) were contacted twice. If both these leaders did not respond, then the survey was sent to residency program administrators or Hospital Medicine Division Chiefs. Only one survey was completed per site.

Data Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize quantitative data. Responses to open-ended qualitative questions about the goals, strengths, and design of rotations were analyzed using thematic analysis.¹¹ During analysis, we iteratively developed and refined codes that identified important concepts that emerged from the data. Two members of the research team trained in qualitative data analysis coded these data independently (SL & JH).

Eighty-two residency program leaders (53 PD, 19 APD, 10 chiefs/admin) responded to the survey (82% total response rate). Among all responders, the prevalence of hospitalist-focused rotations was 50% (41/82). Of these 41 rotations, 85% (35/41) were elective rotations and 15% (6/41) were mandatory rotations. Hospitalist rotations ranged in existence from 1 to 15 years with a mean duration of 4.78 years (S.D. 3.5).

Of the 41 programs that did not have a hospital medicine-focused rotation, the key barriers identified were a lack of a well-defined model (29%), low faculty interest (15%), low resident interest (12%), and lack of funding (5%). Despite these barriers, 9 of these 41 programs (22%) stated they planned to start a rotation in the future – of which, 3 programs (7%) planned to start a rotation within the year.

The Hospital Elective National Survey provides insight into a growing component of hospitalist-focused training and preparation. Fifty percent of ACGME residency programs surveyed in this study had a hospitalist-focused rotation. Rotation characteristics were heterogeneous, perhaps reflecting both the homegrown nature of their development and the lack of national study or data to guide what constitutes an “ideal” rotation. Common functions of rotations included providing career mentorship and allowing for trainees to get experience “being a hospitalist.” Other key elements of the rotations included providing additional clinical autonomy and teaching material outside of traditional residency curricula such as quality improvement, patient safety, billing, and healthcare finances.

Prior research has explored other training for hospitalists such as fellowships, pathways, and faculty development.^6-8 A hospital medicine fellowship provides extensive training but without a practice requirement in adult medicine (as now exists in pediatric hospital medicine), the impact of fellowship training may be limited by its scale.^12,13 Longitudinal hospitalist residency pathways provide comprehensive skill development and often require an early career commitment from trainees.⁷ Faculty development can be another tool to foster career growth, though requires local investment from hospitalist groups that may not have the resources or experience to support this.⁸ Our study has highlighted that hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs can train physicians for a career in hospital medicine. Hospitalist and residency leaders should consider that these rotations might be the only hospital medicine-focused training that new hospitalists will have. Given the variable nature of these rotations nationally, developing standards around core hospitalist competencies within these rotations should be a key component to career preparation and a goal for the field at large.^14,15

Our study has limitations. The survey focused only on internal medicine as it is the most common training background of hospitalists; however, the field has grown to include other specialties including pediatrics, neurology, family medicine, and surgery. In addition, the survey reviewed the largest ACGME Internal Medicine programs to best evaluate prevalence and content—it may be that some smaller programs have rotations with different characteristics that we have not captured. Lastly, the survey reviewed the rotations through the lens of residency program leadership and not trainees. A future survey of trainees or early career hospitalists who participated in these rotations could provide a better understanding of their achievements and effectiveness.

We anticipate that the demand for hospitalist-focused training will continue to grow as more residents in training seek to enter the specialty. Hospitalist and residency program leaders have an opportunity within residency training programs to build new or further develop existing hospital medicine-focused rotations. The HENS survey demonstrates that hospitalist-focused rotations are prevalent in residency education and have the potential to play an important role in hospitalist training.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

Hospital medicine has become the fastest growing medicine subspecialty, though no standardized hospitalist-focused educational program is required to become a practicing adult medicine hospitalist.¹ Historically, adult hospitalists have had little additional training beyond residency, yet, as residency training adapts to duty hour restrictions, patient caps, and increasing attending oversight, it is not clear if traditional rotations and curricula provide adequate preparation for independent practice as an adult hospitalist.^2-5 Several types of training and educational programs have emerged to fill this potential gap. These include hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, early career faculty development programs (eg, Society of Hospital Medicine/ Society of General Internal Medicine sponsored Academic Hospitalist Academy), and hospitalist-focused resident rotations.^6-10 These activities are intended to ensure that residents and early career physicians gain the skills and competencies required to effectively practice hospital medicine.

Hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, and faculty development have been described previously.^6-8 However, the prevalence and characteristics of hospital medicine-focused resident rotations are unknown, and these rotations are rarely publicized beyond local residency programs. Our study aims to determine the prevalence, purpose, and function of hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs and explore the role these rotations have in preparing residents for a career in hospital medicine.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving the largest 100 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) internal medicine residency programs. We chose the largest programs as we hypothesized that these programs would be most likely to have the infrastructure to support hospital medicine focused rotations compared to smaller programs. The UCSF Committee on Human Research approved this study.

Survey Development

We developed a study-specific survey (the Hospitalist Elective National Survey [HENS]) to assess the prevalence, structure, curricular goals, and perceived benefits of distinct hospitalist rotations as defined by individual resident programs. The survey prompted respondents to consider a “hospitalist-focused” rotation as one that is different from a traditional inpatient “ward” rotation and whose emphasis is on hospitalist-specific training, clinical skills, or career development. The 18-question survey (Appendix 1) included fixed choice, multiple choice, and open-ended responses.

Data Collection

Using publicly available data from the ACGME website (www.acgme.org), we identified the largest 100 medicine programs based on the total number of residents. This included programs with 81 or more residents. An electronic survey was e-mailed to the leadership of each program. In May 2015, surveys were sent to Residency Program Directors (PD), and if they did not respond after 2 attempts, then Associate Program Directors (APD) were contacted twice. If both these leaders did not respond, then the survey was sent to residency program administrators or Hospital Medicine Division Chiefs. Only one survey was completed per site.

Data Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize quantitative data. Responses to open-ended qualitative questions about the goals, strengths, and design of rotations were analyzed using thematic analysis.¹¹ During analysis, we iteratively developed and refined codes that identified important concepts that emerged from the data. Two members of the research team trained in qualitative data analysis coded these data independently (SL & JH).

Eighty-two residency program leaders (53 PD, 19 APD, 10 chiefs/admin) responded to the survey (82% total response rate). Among all responders, the prevalence of hospitalist-focused rotations was 50% (41/82). Of these 41 rotations, 85% (35/41) were elective rotations and 15% (6/41) were mandatory rotations. Hospitalist rotations ranged in existence from 1 to 15 years with a mean duration of 4.78 years (S.D. 3.5).

Of the 41 programs that did not have a hospital medicine-focused rotation, the key barriers identified were a lack of a well-defined model (29%), low faculty interest (15%), low resident interest (12%), and lack of funding (5%). Despite these barriers, 9 of these 41 programs (22%) stated they planned to start a rotation in the future – of which, 3 programs (7%) planned to start a rotation within the year.

The Hospital Elective National Survey provides insight into a growing component of hospitalist-focused training and preparation. Fifty percent of ACGME residency programs surveyed in this study had a hospitalist-focused rotation. Rotation characteristics were heterogeneous, perhaps reflecting both the homegrown nature of their development and the lack of national study or data to guide what constitutes an “ideal” rotation. Common functions of rotations included providing career mentorship and allowing for trainees to get experience “being a hospitalist.” Other key elements of the rotations included providing additional clinical autonomy and teaching material outside of traditional residency curricula such as quality improvement, patient safety, billing, and healthcare finances.

Prior research has explored other training for hospitalists such as fellowships, pathways, and faculty development.^6-8 A hospital medicine fellowship provides extensive training but without a practice requirement in adult medicine (as now exists in pediatric hospital medicine), the impact of fellowship training may be limited by its scale.^12,13 Longitudinal hospitalist residency pathways provide comprehensive skill development and often require an early career commitment from trainees.⁷ Faculty development can be another tool to foster career growth, though requires local investment from hospitalist groups that may not have the resources or experience to support this.⁸ Our study has highlighted that hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs can train physicians for a career in hospital medicine. Hospitalist and residency leaders should consider that these rotations might be the only hospital medicine-focused training that new hospitalists will have. Given the variable nature of these rotations nationally, developing standards around core hospitalist competencies within these rotations should be a key component to career preparation and a goal for the field at large.^14,15

Our study has limitations. The survey focused only on internal medicine as it is the most common training background of hospitalists; however, the field has grown to include other specialties including pediatrics, neurology, family medicine, and surgery. In addition, the survey reviewed the largest ACGME Internal Medicine programs to best evaluate prevalence and content—it may be that some smaller programs have rotations with different characteristics that we have not captured. Lastly, the survey reviewed the rotations through the lens of residency program leadership and not trainees. A future survey of trainees or early career hospitalists who participated in these rotations could provide a better understanding of their achievements and effectiveness.

We anticipate that the demand for hospitalist-focused training will continue to grow as more residents in training seek to enter the specialty. Hospitalist and residency program leaders have an opportunity within residency training programs to build new or further develop existing hospital medicine-focused rotations. The HENS survey demonstrates that hospitalist-focused rotations are prevalent in residency education and have the potential to play an important role in hospitalist training.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

Hospital medicine has become the fastest growing medicine subspecialty, though no standardized hospitalist-focused educational program is required to become a practicing adult medicine hospitalist.¹ Historically, adult hospitalists have had little additional training beyond residency, yet, as residency training adapts to duty hour restrictions, patient caps, and increasing attending oversight, it is not clear if traditional rotations and curricula provide adequate preparation for independent practice as an adult hospitalist.^2-5 Several types of training and educational programs have emerged to fill this potential gap. These include hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, early career faculty development programs (eg, Society of Hospital Medicine/ Society of General Internal Medicine sponsored Academic Hospitalist Academy), and hospitalist-focused resident rotations.^6-10 These activities are intended to ensure that residents and early career physicians gain the skills and competencies required to effectively practice hospital medicine.

Hospital medicine fellowships, residency pathways, and faculty development have been described previously.^6-8 However, the prevalence and characteristics of hospital medicine-focused resident rotations are unknown, and these rotations are rarely publicized beyond local residency programs. Our study aims to determine the prevalence, purpose, and function of hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs and explore the role these rotations have in preparing residents for a career in hospital medicine.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving the largest 100 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) internal medicine residency programs. We chose the largest programs as we hypothesized that these programs would be most likely to have the infrastructure to support hospital medicine focused rotations compared to smaller programs. The UCSF Committee on Human Research approved this study.

Survey Development

We developed a study-specific survey (the Hospitalist Elective National Survey [HENS]) to assess the prevalence, structure, curricular goals, and perceived benefits of distinct hospitalist rotations as defined by individual resident programs. The survey prompted respondents to consider a “hospitalist-focused” rotation as one that is different from a traditional inpatient “ward” rotation and whose emphasis is on hospitalist-specific training, clinical skills, or career development. The 18-question survey (Appendix 1) included fixed choice, multiple choice, and open-ended responses.

Data Collection

Using publicly available data from the ACGME website (www.acgme.org), we identified the largest 100 medicine programs based on the total number of residents. This included programs with 81 or more residents. An electronic survey was e-mailed to the leadership of each program. In May 2015, surveys were sent to Residency Program Directors (PD), and if they did not respond after 2 attempts, then Associate Program Directors (APD) were contacted twice. If both these leaders did not respond, then the survey was sent to residency program administrators or Hospital Medicine Division Chiefs. Only one survey was completed per site.

Data Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to summarize quantitative data. Responses to open-ended qualitative questions about the goals, strengths, and design of rotations were analyzed using thematic analysis.¹¹ During analysis, we iteratively developed and refined codes that identified important concepts that emerged from the data. Two members of the research team trained in qualitative data analysis coded these data independently (SL & JH).

Eighty-two residency program leaders (53 PD, 19 APD, 10 chiefs/admin) responded to the survey (82% total response rate). Among all responders, the prevalence of hospitalist-focused rotations was 50% (41/82). Of these 41 rotations, 85% (35/41) were elective rotations and 15% (6/41) were mandatory rotations. Hospitalist rotations ranged in existence from 1 to 15 years with a mean duration of 4.78 years (S.D. 3.5).

Of the 41 programs that did not have a hospital medicine-focused rotation, the key barriers identified were a lack of a well-defined model (29%), low faculty interest (15%), low resident interest (12%), and lack of funding (5%). Despite these barriers, 9 of these 41 programs (22%) stated they planned to start a rotation in the future – of which, 3 programs (7%) planned to start a rotation within the year.

The Hospital Elective National Survey provides insight into a growing component of hospitalist-focused training and preparation. Fifty percent of ACGME residency programs surveyed in this study had a hospitalist-focused rotation. Rotation characteristics were heterogeneous, perhaps reflecting both the homegrown nature of their development and the lack of national study or data to guide what constitutes an “ideal” rotation. Common functions of rotations included providing career mentorship and allowing for trainees to get experience “being a hospitalist.” Other key elements of the rotations included providing additional clinical autonomy and teaching material outside of traditional residency curricula such as quality improvement, patient safety, billing, and healthcare finances.

Prior research has explored other training for hospitalists such as fellowships, pathways, and faculty development.^6-8 A hospital medicine fellowship provides extensive training but without a practice requirement in adult medicine (as now exists in pediatric hospital medicine), the impact of fellowship training may be limited by its scale.^12,13 Longitudinal hospitalist residency pathways provide comprehensive skill development and often require an early career commitment from trainees.⁷ Faculty development can be another tool to foster career growth, though requires local investment from hospitalist groups that may not have the resources or experience to support this.⁸ Our study has highlighted that hospitalist-focused rotations within residency programs can train physicians for a career in hospital medicine. Hospitalist and residency leaders should consider that these rotations might be the only hospital medicine-focused training that new hospitalists will have. Given the variable nature of these rotations nationally, developing standards around core hospitalist competencies within these rotations should be a key component to career preparation and a goal for the field at large.^14,15

Our study has limitations. The survey focused only on internal medicine as it is the most common training background of hospitalists; however, the field has grown to include other specialties including pediatrics, neurology, family medicine, and surgery. In addition, the survey reviewed the largest ACGME Internal Medicine programs to best evaluate prevalence and content—it may be that some smaller programs have rotations with different characteristics that we have not captured. Lastly, the survey reviewed the rotations through the lens of residency program leadership and not trainees. A future survey of trainees or early career hospitalists who participated in these rotations could provide a better understanding of their achievements and effectiveness.

We anticipate that the demand for hospitalist-focused training will continue to grow as more residents in training seek to enter the specialty. Hospitalist and residency program leaders have an opportunity within residency training programs to build new or further develop existing hospital medicine-focused rotations. The HENS survey demonstrates that hospitalist-focused rotations are prevalent in residency education and have the potential to play an important role in hospitalist training.

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

Academic hospital medicine is a young specialty, with most faculty at the rank of instructor or assistant professor.¹ Traditional markers of academic success for clinical and translational investigators emphasize progressive, externally funded grants, achievements in basic science research, and prolific publication in the peer-reviewed literature.² Promotion is often used as a proxy measure for academic success.

Conceptual models of career success derived from nonhealthcare industries and for physician-scientists include both extrinsic and intrinsic domains.^3,4 Extrinsic domains of career success include financial rewards (compensation) and progression in hierarchical status (advancement).^3,4 Intrinsic domains of career success include pleasure derived from daily work (job satisfaction) and satisfaction derived from aspects of the career over time (career satisfaction).^3,4

Research is limited regarding hospitalist faculty beliefs about career success. A better understanding of hospitalist perspectives can inform program development to support junior faculty in academic hospital medicine. In this phenomenological, qualitative study, we explore the global concept of career success as perceived by early-career clinician-educator hospitalists.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted interviews with hospitalists from 3 academic medical centers between May 2016 and October 2016. Purposeful sampling was used.⁵ Leaders within each hospital medicine group identified early-career faculty with approximately 2 to 5 years in academic medicine with a rank of instructor or assistant professor at each institution likely to self-identify as clinician-educators for targeted solicitation to enroll. Additional subjects were recruited until thematic saturation had been achieved on the personal definition of career success. Participants received disclosure and consent documents prior to enrollment. No compensation was provided to participants. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Interview Guide Development and Content

The semistructured interview format was developed and validated through an iterative process. Proposed questions were developed by study investigators on the basis of review of the literature on career success in nonhealthcare industries and academic hospitalist promotion. The questions were assessed for content validity through a review of interview domains by an academic hospitalist program director (R. P.). Cognitive interviewing with 3 representative academic hospitalists who were not part of the study cohort was done as an additional face-validation step of the question probe structure. As a result of the cognitive interviews, 1 question was eliminated, and a framework for clarifications and answer probes was derived prior to the enrollment of the first study subject. No changes were made to the interview format during the study period.

Data Collection

The principal investigator (E.C.) performed all interviews by using the interview tool consisting of 7 demographic questions and 11 open-ended questions and exploring aspects of the concept of career success. The initial open-ended question, “How would you personally define career success as an academic hospitalist at this stage in your career?” represented the primary question of interest. Follow-up questions were used to better understand responses to the primary question. All interviews were audio recorded, deidentified, and transcribed by the principal investigator. Transcripts were randomly audited by a second investigator (E.Y.) for accuracy and completeness.

Sample Size Determination

Interviews were continued to thematic saturation. After the first 3 interviews were transcribed, 2 members of the research team (E.C. and P.K.) reviewed the transcripts and developed a preliminary thematic codebook for the primary question. Subsequent interviews were reviewed and analyzed against these themes. Interviews were continued to thematic saturation, which was defined as more than 3 sequential interviews with no new identified themes.⁶

Data Analysis

By using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti version 7; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), transcriptions were analyzed with a team-based, mixed inductive-deductive approach. An inductive approach was utilized to allow basic theme codes to emerge from the raw text, and thus remaining open to unanticipated themes. Investigators assessed each distinct quote for new themes, confirmatory themes, and challenges to previously developed concepts. Basic themes were then discussed among research team members to determine prominent themes, with basic theme codes added, removed, or combined at this stage of the analysis. Responses to each follow-up question were subsequently assessed for new themes, confirmatory themes, or challenges to previously developed concepts related to the personal definition of career success. A deductive approach was then used to map our inductively generated themes back to the organizing themes of the existing conceptual framework.

Thematic Mapping to Organizing Themes of the Conceptual Model (Table)

The single most dominant theme, “excitement about daily work” was connected to an intrinsic sense of job satisfaction. Career satisfaction emerged from interviews more frequently than extrinsic organizing themes, such as advancement or compensation. Advancement through promotion was infrequently referenced as part of success, and tenure was never raised despite being available for clinician-educators at 2 of the 3 institutions. Compensation was not referenced in any interviewee’s initial definition of career success, although in 1 interview, it came up in response to a follow-up question. The Figure visually represents the relative weighting (shown by the sizes of the boxes) of organizing themes to the early-career hospitalists’ self-concepts of career success. Relationships among organizing themes as they emerged from interviews are represented by arrows.

Intrinsic—Job Satisfaction

With regard to job satisfaction, early-career faculty often invoked words such as “excitement,” “enjoyment,” and “passionate” to describe an overall theme of “excitement about daily work.” A positive affective state created by the nature of daily work was described as integral to the personal sense of career success. It was also strongly associated with perception of sustainability in a hospitalist career.

“I think [career success] would be job satisfaction. …So, for me, that would be happiness with my job. I like coming to work. I like doing what I do and at the end of the day going home and saying that was a good day. I like to think that would be success at work…is how I would define it.”

This theme was also related to a negative aspect often referred to as burnout, which many identified as antithetical to career success. More often, they described success as a heightened state of enthusiasm for the daily work experience.

“I am staying engaged and excited. So, I am not just taking care of patients; I am not just teaching. Having enough excitement from my work to come home and talk about it at dinner. To enjoy my days off but at the same time being excited to get back to work.”

This description of passion toward the work of being a hospitalist was often linked to a sense of deeper purpose found through the delivery of clinical care and education of learners.

“I really feel that we have the opportunity to very meaningfully and powerfully impact people’s lives, and that to me is meaningful. …That’s value. ...That’s coming home at the end of the day and thinking that you have had a positive impact.”

The interviews reflected that core to meaningful work was a sense of personal efficacy as a clinician, which was reflected in the themes of clinical proficiency and practicing high-quality care.

“I think developing clinical expertise, both through experience and studying. Getting to the point to where you can take really excellent care of your patient through expertise would be a sense of success that a lot of academic hospitalists would strive for.”

Intrinsic—Career Satisfaction

Within career satisfaction, participants described that “being respected and recognized” and “dissemination of work” were important contributors to career success. Reputation was frequently referenced as a measure of career success. Reputation was defined by some in a local context of having the respect of learners, peers, and others as a national renown. As a prerequisite for developing a reputation beyond the local academic environment, dissemination of work was often referenced as an important component of satisfaction in the career. This dissemination extended beyond peer-reviewed publications and included other forms of scholarship, presentations at conferences, and sharing clinical innovations between hospitals.

“For me personally, I have less of an emphasis on research and some of the more, I don’t want to say ‘academic’ because I think education is academic, but maybe some of the more scholarly practice of medicine, doing research and the writing of papers and things like that, although I certainly view some of that as a part of career success.”

Within career satisfaction, participants also described a diverse set of themes, including progressive improvement in skills, developing a self-perception of excellence in 1 or more arenas of academic medicine, leadership, work–life integration, innovation, and relationships. The concept of developing a niche, or becoming an expert in a particular domain of hospital medicine, was frequently referenced.

“I think part of [success] is ‘Have they identified a niche?’ Because I think if you want to be in an academic center, as much as I value teaching and taking care of patients, I think 1 of the advantages is the opportunity to potentially identify an area of expertise.”

Participants frequently alluded to the idea that the most important aspects of career satisfaction are not static phenomena but rather values that could evolve over the course of a career. For instance, in the early-career, making a difference with individual learners or patients could have greater valence, but as the career progressed, finding a niche, disseminating work, and building a national reputation would gain importance to a personal sense of career satisfaction.

Extrinsic—Advancement

Promotion was typically referenced when discussing career success, but it was not uniformly valued by early career hospitalists. Some expressed significant ambivalence about its effect on their personal sense of career success. Academic hospitalists identified a number of organizations with definitions of success that influence them. Definitions of success for the university were more relevant to interviewees compared to those of the hospital or professional societies. Interviewees were able to describe a variety of criteria by which their universities define or recognize career success. These commonly included promotion, publications and/or scholarship, and research. The list of factors perceived as success by the hospital were often distinct from those of the university and included cost-effective care, patient safety, and clinical leadership roles.

Participants described a sense of internal conflict when external-stakeholder definitions of success diverged from internal motivators. This was particularly true when this divergence led academic hospitalists to engage in activities for advancement that they did not find personally fulfilling. Academic hospitalists recognized that advancement was central to the concept of career success for organizations even if this was not identified as being core to their personal definitions of success.

“I think that for me, the idea of being promoted and being a leader in the field is less important to me than...for the organization.”

Hospitalists expressed that objective markers, such as promotion and publications, were perceived as more important at higher levels of the academic organization, whereas more subjective aspects of success, aligned with intrinsic personal definitions, were more valued within the hospital medicine group.

Extrinsic—Compensation

Compensation was notable for its absence in participants’ discussion of career success. When asked about their definitions of career success, academic hospitalists did not spontaneously raise the topic of compensation. The only mention of compensation was in response to a question about how personal and external definitions of career success differ.

Unexpected Findings

While it was almost universally recognized by participants as important, ambivalence toward the “academic value of clinical work,” “scholarship,” and especially “promotion” represented an unexpected thematic family.

“I can’t quite get excited about a title attached to my name or the number of times my name pops up when I enter it into PubMed. My personal definition is more…where do I have something that I am interested [in] that someone else values. And that value is not shown as an associate professorship or an assistant professorship next to my name. …When you push me on it, you could call me clinical instructor forever, and I don’t think I would care too much.”

The interaction between work and personal activities as representing complementary aspects of a global sense of success was also unexpected and ran contrary to a simplistic conception of work and life in conflict. Academic hospitalists referenced that the ability to participate in aspects of life external to the workplace was important to their sense of career success. Participants frequently used phrases such as “work–life balance” to encompass a larger sense that work and nonwork life needed to merge to form a holistic sense of having a positive impact.

“Personal success is becoming what I have termed a ‘man of worth.’ I think [that is] someone who feels as though they make a positive impact in the world. Through both my career, but I guess the things that I do that are external to my career. Those would be defined by being a good husband, a good son, a philanthropist out in the community…sometimes, these are not things that can necessarily go on a [curriculum vitae].”

Conflict Among Organizing Themes

At times, academic hospitalists described a tension between day-to-day job satisfaction and what would be necessary to accomplish longer-term career success in the other organizing themes. This was reflected by a sense of trade-off. For instance, activities that lead to some aspects of career satisfaction or advancement would take time away from the direct exposure to learners and clinical care that currently drive job satisfaction.

“If the institution wanted me to be more productive from a research standpoint or…advocate that I receive funding so I could buy down clinical time and interactions I have with my students and my patients, then I can see my satisfaction going down.”

Many described a sense of engaging in activities they did not find personally fulfilling because of a sense of expectation that those activities were considered successful by others. Some described a state in which the drive toward advancement as an extrinsic incentive could come at the expense of the intrinsic rewards of being an academic hospitalist.

Career success has been defined as “the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences.”^4,7,8 Academic career success for hospitalist faculty isn’t as well defined and has not been examined from the perspectives of early-career clinician-educator hospitalist faculty themselves.

The themes that emerged in this study describe a definition of success anchored in the daily work of striving to become an exceptional clinician and teacher. The major themes included (1) having excitement about daily work, (2) having meaningful impact, (3) development of a niche (4) a sense of respect within the sphere of academic medicine, and (5) disseminating work.

Success was very much internally defined as having a positive, meaningful impact on patients, learners, and the systems in which they practice. The faculty had a conception of what promotion committees value and often internalized aspects of this, such as developing a national reputation and giving talks at national meetings. Participants typically self-identified as clinician-educators, and yet dissemination of work remained an important component of personal success. While promotion was clearly identified as a marker of success, academic hospitalists often rejected the supposition of promotion itself as a professional goal. They expressed hope, and some skepticism, that external recognition of career success would follow the pursuit of internally meaningful goals.

While promotion and peer-reviewed publications represent easily measured markers often used as proxies for individual career and programmatic success, our research demonstrates that there is a deep well of externally imperceptible influences on an individual’s sense of success as an academic hospitalist. In our analysis, intrinsic elements of career success received far greater weight with early-career academic hospitalists. Our findings are supported by a prior survey of academic physicians that similarly found that faculty with >50% of their time devoted to clinical care placed greater career value in patient care, relationships with patients, and recognition by patients and residents compared to national reputation.⁹ Similar to our own findings, highly clinical faculty in that study were also less likely to value promotion and tenure as indicators of career success.⁹

The main focus of our questions was how early-career faculty define success at this point in their careers. When asked to extrapolate to a future state of career success, the concept of progression was repeatedly raised. This included successive promotions to higher academic ranks, increasing responsibility, titles, leadership, and achieving competitive roles or awards. It also included a progressively increasing impact of scholarship, growing national reputation, and becoming part of a network of accomplished academic hospitalists across the country. Looking forward, our early-career hospitalists felt that long-term career success would represent accomplishing these things and still being able to be focused on being excellent clinicians to patients, having a work–life balance, and keeping joy and excitement in daily activities.

Our work has limitations, including a focus on early-career clinician-educator hospitalists. The perception of career success may evolve over time, and future work to examine perceptions in more advanced academic hospitalists would be of interest. Our work used purposeful sampling to capture individuals who were likely to self-identify as academic clinician-educators, and results may not generalize to hospitalist physician-scientists or hospitalists in community practices.

Our analysis suggests that external organizations influence internal perceptions of career success. However, success is ultimately defined by the individual and not the institution. Efforts to measure and improve academic hospitalists’ attainment of career success should attend to intrinsic aspects of satisfaction in addition to objective measures, such as publications and promotion. This may provide a mechanism to address burnout and improve retention. As important as commonality in themes is the variation in self-definitions of career success among individuals. This suggests the value of inquiry by academic leadership in exploring and understanding what success is from the individual faculty perspective. This may enhance the alignment among personal definitions, organizational values, and, ultimately, sustainable, successful careers.

Disclosure: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Academic hospital medicine is a young specialty, with most faculty at the rank of instructor or assistant professor.¹ Traditional markers of academic success for clinical and translational investigators emphasize progressive, externally funded grants, achievements in basic science research, and prolific publication in the peer-reviewed literature.² Promotion is often used as a proxy measure for academic success.

Conceptual models of career success derived from nonhealthcare industries and for physician-scientists include both extrinsic and intrinsic domains.^3,4 Extrinsic domains of career success include financial rewards (compensation) and progression in hierarchical status (advancement).^3,4 Intrinsic domains of career success include pleasure derived from daily work (job satisfaction) and satisfaction derived from aspects of the career over time (career satisfaction).^3,4

Research is limited regarding hospitalist faculty beliefs about career success. A better understanding of hospitalist perspectives can inform program development to support junior faculty in academic hospital medicine. In this phenomenological, qualitative study, we explore the global concept of career success as perceived by early-career clinician-educator hospitalists.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted interviews with hospitalists from 3 academic medical centers between May 2016 and October 2016. Purposeful sampling was used.⁵ Leaders within each hospital medicine group identified early-career faculty with approximately 2 to 5 years in academic medicine with a rank of instructor or assistant professor at each institution likely to self-identify as clinician-educators for targeted solicitation to enroll. Additional subjects were recruited until thematic saturation had been achieved on the personal definition of career success. Participants received disclosure and consent documents prior to enrollment. No compensation was provided to participants. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Interview Guide Development and Content

The semistructured interview format was developed and validated through an iterative process. Proposed questions were developed by study investigators on the basis of review of the literature on career success in nonhealthcare industries and academic hospitalist promotion. The questions were assessed for content validity through a review of interview domains by an academic hospitalist program director (R. P.). Cognitive interviewing with 3 representative academic hospitalists who were not part of the study cohort was done as an additional face-validation step of the question probe structure. As a result of the cognitive interviews, 1 question was eliminated, and a framework for clarifications and answer probes was derived prior to the enrollment of the first study subject. No changes were made to the interview format during the study period.

Data Collection

The principal investigator (E.C.) performed all interviews by using the interview tool consisting of 7 demographic questions and 11 open-ended questions and exploring aspects of the concept of career success. The initial open-ended question, “How would you personally define career success as an academic hospitalist at this stage in your career?” represented the primary question of interest. Follow-up questions were used to better understand responses to the primary question. All interviews were audio recorded, deidentified, and transcribed by the principal investigator. Transcripts were randomly audited by a second investigator (E.Y.) for accuracy and completeness.

Sample Size Determination

Interviews were continued to thematic saturation. After the first 3 interviews were transcribed, 2 members of the research team (E.C. and P.K.) reviewed the transcripts and developed a preliminary thematic codebook for the primary question. Subsequent interviews were reviewed and analyzed against these themes. Interviews were continued to thematic saturation, which was defined as more than 3 sequential interviews with no new identified themes.⁶

Data Analysis

By using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti version 7; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), transcriptions were analyzed with a team-based, mixed inductive-deductive approach. An inductive approach was utilized to allow basic theme codes to emerge from the raw text, and thus remaining open to unanticipated themes. Investigators assessed each distinct quote for new themes, confirmatory themes, and challenges to previously developed concepts. Basic themes were then discussed among research team members to determine prominent themes, with basic theme codes added, removed, or combined at this stage of the analysis. Responses to each follow-up question were subsequently assessed for new themes, confirmatory themes, or challenges to previously developed concepts related to the personal definition of career success. A deductive approach was then used to map our inductively generated themes back to the organizing themes of the existing conceptual framework.

Thematic Mapping to Organizing Themes of the Conceptual Model (Table)

The single most dominant theme, “excitement about daily work” was connected to an intrinsic sense of job satisfaction. Career satisfaction emerged from interviews more frequently than extrinsic organizing themes, such as advancement or compensation. Advancement through promotion was infrequently referenced as part of success, and tenure was never raised despite being available for clinician-educators at 2 of the 3 institutions. Compensation was not referenced in any interviewee’s initial definition of career success, although in 1 interview, it came up in response to a follow-up question. The Figure visually represents the relative weighting (shown by the sizes of the boxes) of organizing themes to the early-career hospitalists’ self-concepts of career success. Relationships among organizing themes as they emerged from interviews are represented by arrows.

Intrinsic—Job Satisfaction

With regard to job satisfaction, early-career faculty often invoked words such as “excitement,” “enjoyment,” and “passionate” to describe an overall theme of “excitement about daily work.” A positive affective state created by the nature of daily work was described as integral to the personal sense of career success. It was also strongly associated with perception of sustainability in a hospitalist career.

“I think [career success] would be job satisfaction. …So, for me, that would be happiness with my job. I like coming to work. I like doing what I do and at the end of the day going home and saying that was a good day. I like to think that would be success at work…is how I would define it.”

This theme was also related to a negative aspect often referred to as burnout, which many identified as antithetical to career success. More often, they described success as a heightened state of enthusiasm for the daily work experience.

“I am staying engaged and excited. So, I am not just taking care of patients; I am not just teaching. Having enough excitement from my work to come home and talk about it at dinner. To enjoy my days off but at the same time being excited to get back to work.”

This description of passion toward the work of being a hospitalist was often linked to a sense of deeper purpose found through the delivery of clinical care and education of learners.

“I really feel that we have the opportunity to very meaningfully and powerfully impact people’s lives, and that to me is meaningful. …That’s value. ...That’s coming home at the end of the day and thinking that you have had a positive impact.”

The interviews reflected that core to meaningful work was a sense of personal efficacy as a clinician, which was reflected in the themes of clinical proficiency and practicing high-quality care.

“I think developing clinical expertise, both through experience and studying. Getting to the point to where you can take really excellent care of your patient through expertise would be a sense of success that a lot of academic hospitalists would strive for.”

Intrinsic—Career Satisfaction

Within career satisfaction, participants described that “being respected and recognized” and “dissemination of work” were important contributors to career success. Reputation was frequently referenced as a measure of career success. Reputation was defined by some in a local context of having the respect of learners, peers, and others as a national renown. As a prerequisite for developing a reputation beyond the local academic environment, dissemination of work was often referenced as an important component of satisfaction in the career. This dissemination extended beyond peer-reviewed publications and included other forms of scholarship, presentations at conferences, and sharing clinical innovations between hospitals.

“For me personally, I have less of an emphasis on research and some of the more, I don’t want to say ‘academic’ because I think education is academic, but maybe some of the more scholarly practice of medicine, doing research and the writing of papers and things like that, although I certainly view some of that as a part of career success.”

Within career satisfaction, participants also described a diverse set of themes, including progressive improvement in skills, developing a self-perception of excellence in 1 or more arenas of academic medicine, leadership, work–life integration, innovation, and relationships. The concept of developing a niche, or becoming an expert in a particular domain of hospital medicine, was frequently referenced.

“I think part of [success] is ‘Have they identified a niche?’ Because I think if you want to be in an academic center, as much as I value teaching and taking care of patients, I think 1 of the advantages is the opportunity to potentially identify an area of expertise.”

Participants frequently alluded to the idea that the most important aspects of career satisfaction are not static phenomena but rather values that could evolve over the course of a career. For instance, in the early-career, making a difference with individual learners or patients could have greater valence, but as the career progressed, finding a niche, disseminating work, and building a national reputation would gain importance to a personal sense of career satisfaction.

Extrinsic—Advancement

Promotion was typically referenced when discussing career success, but it was not uniformly valued by early career hospitalists. Some expressed significant ambivalence about its effect on their personal sense of career success. Academic hospitalists identified a number of organizations with definitions of success that influence them. Definitions of success for the university were more relevant to interviewees compared to those of the hospital or professional societies. Interviewees were able to describe a variety of criteria by which their universities define or recognize career success. These commonly included promotion, publications and/or scholarship, and research. The list of factors perceived as success by the hospital were often distinct from those of the university and included cost-effective care, patient safety, and clinical leadership roles.

Participants described a sense of internal conflict when external-stakeholder definitions of success diverged from internal motivators. This was particularly true when this divergence led academic hospitalists to engage in activities for advancement that they did not find personally fulfilling. Academic hospitalists recognized that advancement was central to the concept of career success for organizations even if this was not identified as being core to their personal definitions of success.

“I think that for me, the idea of being promoted and being a leader in the field is less important to me than...for the organization.”

Hospitalists expressed that objective markers, such as promotion and publications, were perceived as more important at higher levels of the academic organization, whereas more subjective aspects of success, aligned with intrinsic personal definitions, were more valued within the hospital medicine group.

Extrinsic—Compensation

Compensation was notable for its absence in participants’ discussion of career success. When asked about their definitions of career success, academic hospitalists did not spontaneously raise the topic of compensation. The only mention of compensation was in response to a question about how personal and external definitions of career success differ.

Unexpected Findings

While it was almost universally recognized by participants as important, ambivalence toward the “academic value of clinical work,” “scholarship,” and especially “promotion” represented an unexpected thematic family.

“I can’t quite get excited about a title attached to my name or the number of times my name pops up when I enter it into PubMed. My personal definition is more…where do I have something that I am interested [in] that someone else values. And that value is not shown as an associate professorship or an assistant professorship next to my name. …When you push me on it, you could call me clinical instructor forever, and I don’t think I would care too much.”

The interaction between work and personal activities as representing complementary aspects of a global sense of success was also unexpected and ran contrary to a simplistic conception of work and life in conflict. Academic hospitalists referenced that the ability to participate in aspects of life external to the workplace was important to their sense of career success. Participants frequently used phrases such as “work–life balance” to encompass a larger sense that work and nonwork life needed to merge to form a holistic sense of having a positive impact.

“Personal success is becoming what I have termed a ‘man of worth.’ I think [that is] someone who feels as though they make a positive impact in the world. Through both my career, but I guess the things that I do that are external to my career. Those would be defined by being a good husband, a good son, a philanthropist out in the community…sometimes, these are not things that can necessarily go on a [curriculum vitae].”

Conflict Among Organizing Themes

At times, academic hospitalists described a tension between day-to-day job satisfaction and what would be necessary to accomplish longer-term career success in the other organizing themes. This was reflected by a sense of trade-off. For instance, activities that lead to some aspects of career satisfaction or advancement would take time away from the direct exposure to learners and clinical care that currently drive job satisfaction.

“If the institution wanted me to be more productive from a research standpoint or…advocate that I receive funding so I could buy down clinical time and interactions I have with my students and my patients, then I can see my satisfaction going down.”

Many described a sense of engaging in activities they did not find personally fulfilling because of a sense of expectation that those activities were considered successful by others. Some described a state in which the drive toward advancement as an extrinsic incentive could come at the expense of the intrinsic rewards of being an academic hospitalist.

Career success has been defined as “the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences.”^4,7,8 Academic career success for hospitalist faculty isn’t as well defined and has not been examined from the perspectives of early-career clinician-educator hospitalist faculty themselves.

The themes that emerged in this study describe a definition of success anchored in the daily work of striving to become an exceptional clinician and teacher. The major themes included (1) having excitement about daily work, (2) having meaningful impact, (3) development of a niche (4) a sense of respect within the sphere of academic medicine, and (5) disseminating work.

Success was very much internally defined as having a positive, meaningful impact on patients, learners, and the systems in which they practice. The faculty had a conception of what promotion committees value and often internalized aspects of this, such as developing a national reputation and giving talks at national meetings. Participants typically self-identified as clinician-educators, and yet dissemination of work remained an important component of personal success. While promotion was clearly identified as a marker of success, academic hospitalists often rejected the supposition of promotion itself as a professional goal. They expressed hope, and some skepticism, that external recognition of career success would follow the pursuit of internally meaningful goals.

While promotion and peer-reviewed publications represent easily measured markers often used as proxies for individual career and programmatic success, our research demonstrates that there is a deep well of externally imperceptible influences on an individual’s sense of success as an academic hospitalist. In our analysis, intrinsic elements of career success received far greater weight with early-career academic hospitalists. Our findings are supported by a prior survey of academic physicians that similarly found that faculty with >50% of their time devoted to clinical care placed greater career value in patient care, relationships with patients, and recognition by patients and residents compared to national reputation.⁹ Similar to our own findings, highly clinical faculty in that study were also less likely to value promotion and tenure as indicators of career success.⁹

The main focus of our questions was how early-career faculty define success at this point in their careers. When asked to extrapolate to a future state of career success, the concept of progression was repeatedly raised. This included successive promotions to higher academic ranks, increasing responsibility, titles, leadership, and achieving competitive roles or awards. It also included a progressively increasing impact of scholarship, growing national reputation, and becoming part of a network of accomplished academic hospitalists across the country. Looking forward, our early-career hospitalists felt that long-term career success would represent accomplishing these things and still being able to be focused on being excellent clinicians to patients, having a work–life balance, and keeping joy and excitement in daily activities.

Our work has limitations, including a focus on early-career clinician-educator hospitalists. The perception of career success may evolve over time, and future work to examine perceptions in more advanced academic hospitalists would be of interest. Our work used purposeful sampling to capture individuals who were likely to self-identify as academic clinician-educators, and results may not generalize to hospitalist physician-scientists or hospitalists in community practices.

Our analysis suggests that external organizations influence internal perceptions of career success. However, success is ultimately defined by the individual and not the institution. Efforts to measure and improve academic hospitalists’ attainment of career success should attend to intrinsic aspects of satisfaction in addition to objective measures, such as publications and promotion. This may provide a mechanism to address burnout and improve retention. As important as commonality in themes is the variation in self-definitions of career success among individuals. This suggests the value of inquiry by academic leadership in exploring and understanding what success is from the individual faculty perspective. This may enhance the alignment among personal definitions, organizational values, and, ultimately, sustainable, successful careers.

Disclosure: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Academic hospital medicine is a young specialty, with most faculty at the rank of instructor or assistant professor.¹ Traditional markers of academic success for clinical and translational investigators emphasize progressive, externally funded grants, achievements in basic science research, and prolific publication in the peer-reviewed literature.² Promotion is often used as a proxy measure for academic success.

Conceptual models of career success derived from nonhealthcare industries and for physician-scientists include both extrinsic and intrinsic domains.^3,4 Extrinsic domains of career success include financial rewards (compensation) and progression in hierarchical status (advancement).^3,4 Intrinsic domains of career success include pleasure derived from daily work (job satisfaction) and satisfaction derived from aspects of the career over time (career satisfaction).^3,4

Research is limited regarding hospitalist faculty beliefs about career success. A better understanding of hospitalist perspectives can inform program development to support junior faculty in academic hospital medicine. In this phenomenological, qualitative study, we explore the global concept of career success as perceived by early-career clinician-educator hospitalists.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted interviews with hospitalists from 3 academic medical centers between May 2016 and October 2016. Purposeful sampling was used.⁵ Leaders within each hospital medicine group identified early-career faculty with approximately 2 to 5 years in academic medicine with a rank of instructor or assistant professor at each institution likely to self-identify as clinician-educators for targeted solicitation to enroll. Additional subjects were recruited until thematic saturation had been achieved on the personal definition of career success. Participants received disclosure and consent documents prior to enrollment. No compensation was provided to participants. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Interview Guide Development and Content

The semistructured interview format was developed and validated through an iterative process. Proposed questions were developed by study investigators on the basis of review of the literature on career success in nonhealthcare industries and academic hospitalist promotion. The questions were assessed for content validity through a review of interview domains by an academic hospitalist program director (R. P.). Cognitive interviewing with 3 representative academic hospitalists who were not part of the study cohort was done as an additional face-validation step of the question probe structure. As a result of the cognitive interviews, 1 question was eliminated, and a framework for clarifications and answer probes was derived prior to the enrollment of the first study subject. No changes were made to the interview format during the study period.

Data Collection

The principal investigator (E.C.) performed all interviews by using the interview tool consisting of 7 demographic questions and 11 open-ended questions and exploring aspects of the concept of career success. The initial open-ended question, “How would you personally define career success as an academic hospitalist at this stage in your career?” represented the primary question of interest. Follow-up questions were used to better understand responses to the primary question. All interviews were audio recorded, deidentified, and transcribed by the principal investigator. Transcripts were randomly audited by a second investigator (E.Y.) for accuracy and completeness.

Sample Size Determination

Interviews were continued to thematic saturation. After the first 3 interviews were transcribed, 2 members of the research team (E.C. and P.K.) reviewed the transcripts and developed a preliminary thematic codebook for the primary question. Subsequent interviews were reviewed and analyzed against these themes. Interviews were continued to thematic saturation, which was defined as more than 3 sequential interviews with no new identified themes.⁶

Data Analysis

By using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti version 7; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), transcriptions were analyzed with a team-based, mixed inductive-deductive approach. An inductive approach was utilized to allow basic theme codes to emerge from the raw text, and thus remaining open to unanticipated themes. Investigators assessed each distinct quote for new themes, confirmatory themes, and challenges to previously developed concepts. Basic themes were then discussed among research team members to determine prominent themes, with basic theme codes added, removed, or combined at this stage of the analysis. Responses to each follow-up question were subsequently assessed for new themes, confirmatory themes, or challenges to previously developed concepts related to the personal definition of career success. A deductive approach was then used to map our inductively generated themes back to the organizing themes of the existing conceptual framework.

Thematic Mapping to Organizing Themes of the Conceptual Model (Table)

The single most dominant theme, “excitement about daily work” was connected to an intrinsic sense of job satisfaction. Career satisfaction emerged from interviews more frequently than extrinsic organizing themes, such as advancement or compensation. Advancement through promotion was infrequently referenced as part of success, and tenure was never raised despite being available for clinician-educators at 2 of the 3 institutions. Compensation was not referenced in any interviewee’s initial definition of career success, although in 1 interview, it came up in response to a follow-up question. The Figure visually represents the relative weighting (shown by the sizes of the boxes) of organizing themes to the early-career hospitalists’ self-concepts of career success. Relationships among organizing themes as they emerged from interviews are represented by arrows.

Intrinsic—Job Satisfaction

With regard to job satisfaction, early-career faculty often invoked words such as “excitement,” “enjoyment,” and “passionate” to describe an overall theme of “excitement about daily work.” A positive affective state created by the nature of daily work was described as integral to the personal sense of career success. It was also strongly associated with perception of sustainability in a hospitalist career.

“I think [career success] would be job satisfaction. …So, for me, that would be happiness with my job. I like coming to work. I like doing what I do and at the end of the day going home and saying that was a good day. I like to think that would be success at work…is how I would define it.”

This theme was also related to a negative aspect often referred to as burnout, which many identified as antithetical to career success. More often, they described success as a heightened state of enthusiasm for the daily work experience.

“I am staying engaged and excited. So, I am not just taking care of patients; I am not just teaching. Having enough excitement from my work to come home and talk about it at dinner. To enjoy my days off but at the same time being excited to get back to work.”

This description of passion toward the work of being a hospitalist was often linked to a sense of deeper purpose found through the delivery of clinical care and education of learners.

“I really feel that we have the opportunity to very meaningfully and powerfully impact people’s lives, and that to me is meaningful. …That’s value. ...That’s coming home at the end of the day and thinking that you have had a positive impact.”

The interviews reflected that core to meaningful work was a sense of personal efficacy as a clinician, which was reflected in the themes of clinical proficiency and practicing high-quality care.

“I think developing clinical expertise, both through experience and studying. Getting to the point to where you can take really excellent care of your patient through expertise would be a sense of success that a lot of academic hospitalists would strive for.”

Intrinsic—Career Satisfaction

Within career satisfaction, participants described that “being respected and recognized” and “dissemination of work” were important contributors to career success. Reputation was frequently referenced as a measure of career success. Reputation was defined by some in a local context of having the respect of learners, peers, and others as a national renown. As a prerequisite for developing a reputation beyond the local academic environment, dissemination of work was often referenced as an important component of satisfaction in the career. This dissemination extended beyond peer-reviewed publications and included other forms of scholarship, presentations at conferences, and sharing clinical innovations between hospitals.

“For me personally, I have less of an emphasis on research and some of the more, I don’t want to say ‘academic’ because I think education is academic, but maybe some of the more scholarly practice of medicine, doing research and the writing of papers and things like that, although I certainly view some of that as a part of career success.”

Within career satisfaction, participants also described a diverse set of themes, including progressive improvement in skills, developing a self-perception of excellence in 1 or more arenas of academic medicine, leadership, work–life integration, innovation, and relationships. The concept of developing a niche, or becoming an expert in a particular domain of hospital medicine, was frequently referenced.

“I think part of [success] is ‘Have they identified a niche?’ Because I think if you want to be in an academic center, as much as I value teaching and taking care of patients, I think 1 of the advantages is the opportunity to potentially identify an area of expertise.”

Participants frequently alluded to the idea that the most important aspects of career satisfaction are not static phenomena but rather values that could evolve over the course of a career. For instance, in the early-career, making a difference with individual learners or patients could have greater valence, but as the career progressed, finding a niche, disseminating work, and building a national reputation would gain importance to a personal sense of career satisfaction.

Extrinsic—Advancement

Promotion was typically referenced when discussing career success, but it was not uniformly valued by early career hospitalists. Some expressed significant ambivalence about its effect on their personal sense of career success. Academic hospitalists identified a number of organizations with definitions of success that influence them. Definitions of success for the university were more relevant to interviewees compared to those of the hospital or professional societies. Interviewees were able to describe a variety of criteria by which their universities define or recognize career success. These commonly included promotion, publications and/or scholarship, and research. The list of factors perceived as success by the hospital were often distinct from those of the university and included cost-effective care, patient safety, and clinical leadership roles.

Participants described a sense of internal conflict when external-stakeholder definitions of success diverged from internal motivators. This was particularly true when this divergence led academic hospitalists to engage in activities for advancement that they did not find personally fulfilling. Academic hospitalists recognized that advancement was central to the concept of career success for organizations even if this was not identified as being core to their personal definitions of success.

“I think that for me, the idea of being promoted and being a leader in the field is less important to me than...for the organization.”

Hospitalists expressed that objective markers, such as promotion and publications, were perceived as more important at higher levels of the academic organization, whereas more subjective aspects of success, aligned with intrinsic personal definitions, were more valued within the hospital medicine group.

Extrinsic—Compensation

Compensation was notable for its absence in participants’ discussion of career success. When asked about their definitions of career success, academic hospitalists did not spontaneously raise the topic of compensation. The only mention of compensation was in response to a question about how personal and external definitions of career success differ.

Unexpected Findings

While it was almost universally recognized by participants as important, ambivalence toward the “academic value of clinical work,” “scholarship,” and especially “promotion” represented an unexpected thematic family.

“I can’t quite get excited about a title attached to my name or the number of times my name pops up when I enter it into PubMed. My personal definition is more…where do I have something that I am interested [in] that someone else values. And that value is not shown as an associate professorship or an assistant professorship next to my name. …When you push me on it, you could call me clinical instructor forever, and I don’t think I would care too much.”

The interaction between work and personal activities as representing complementary aspects of a global sense of success was also unexpected and ran contrary to a simplistic conception of work and life in conflict. Academic hospitalists referenced that the ability to participate in aspects of life external to the workplace was important to their sense of career success. Participants frequently used phrases such as “work–life balance” to encompass a larger sense that work and nonwork life needed to merge to form a holistic sense of having a positive impact.

“Personal success is becoming what I have termed a ‘man of worth.’ I think [that is] someone who feels as though they make a positive impact in the world. Through both my career, but I guess the things that I do that are external to my career. Those would be defined by being a good husband, a good son, a philanthropist out in the community…sometimes, these are not things that can necessarily go on a [curriculum vitae].”

Conflict Among Organizing Themes

At times, academic hospitalists described a tension between day-to-day job satisfaction and what would be necessary to accomplish longer-term career success in the other organizing themes. This was reflected by a sense of trade-off. For instance, activities that lead to some aspects of career satisfaction or advancement would take time away from the direct exposure to learners and clinical care that currently drive job satisfaction.

“If the institution wanted me to be more productive from a research standpoint or…advocate that I receive funding so I could buy down clinical time and interactions I have with my students and my patients, then I can see my satisfaction going down.”

Many described a sense of engaging in activities they did not find personally fulfilling because of a sense of expectation that those activities were considered successful by others. Some described a state in which the drive toward advancement as an extrinsic incentive could come at the expense of the intrinsic rewards of being an academic hospitalist.

Career success has been defined as “the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences.”^4,7,8 Academic career success for hospitalist faculty isn’t as well defined and has not been examined from the perspectives of early-career clinician-educator hospitalist faculty themselves.

The themes that emerged in this study describe a definition of success anchored in the daily work of striving to become an exceptional clinician and teacher. The major themes included (1) having excitement about daily work, (2) having meaningful impact, (3) development of a niche (4) a sense of respect within the sphere of academic medicine, and (5) disseminating work.

Success was very much internally defined as having a positive, meaningful impact on patients, learners, and the systems in which they practice. The faculty had a conception of what promotion committees value and often internalized aspects of this, such as developing a national reputation and giving talks at national meetings. Participants typically self-identified as clinician-educators, and yet dissemination of work remained an important component of personal success. While promotion was clearly identified as a marker of success, academic hospitalists often rejected the supposition of promotion itself as a professional goal. They expressed hope, and some skepticism, that external recognition of career success would follow the pursuit of internally meaningful goals.

While promotion and peer-reviewed publications represent easily measured markers often used as proxies for individual career and programmatic success, our research demonstrates that there is a deep well of externally imperceptible influences on an individual’s sense of success as an academic hospitalist. In our analysis, intrinsic elements of career success received far greater weight with early-career academic hospitalists. Our findings are supported by a prior survey of academic physicians that similarly found that faculty with >50% of their time devoted to clinical care placed greater career value in patient care, relationships with patients, and recognition by patients and residents compared to national reputation.⁹ Similar to our own findings, highly clinical faculty in that study were also less likely to value promotion and tenure as indicators of career success.⁹

The main focus of our questions was how early-career faculty define success at this point in their careers. When asked to extrapolate to a future state of career success, the concept of progression was repeatedly raised. This included successive promotions to higher academic ranks, increasing responsibility, titles, leadership, and achieving competitive roles or awards. It also included a progressively increasing impact of scholarship, growing national reputation, and becoming part of a network of accomplished academic hospitalists across the country. Looking forward, our early-career hospitalists felt that long-term career success would represent accomplishing these things and still being able to be focused on being excellent clinicians to patients, having a work–life balance, and keeping joy and excitement in daily activities.

Our work has limitations, including a focus on early-career clinician-educator hospitalists. The perception of career success may evolve over time, and future work to examine perceptions in more advanced academic hospitalists would be of interest. Our work used purposeful sampling to capture individuals who were likely to self-identify as academic clinician-educators, and results may not generalize to hospitalist physician-scientists or hospitalists in community practices.

Our analysis suggests that external organizations influence internal perceptions of career success. However, success is ultimately defined by the individual and not the institution. Efforts to measure and improve academic hospitalists’ attainment of career success should attend to intrinsic aspects of satisfaction in addition to objective measures, such as publications and promotion. This may provide a mechanism to address burnout and improve retention. As important as commonality in themes is the variation in self-definitions of career success among individuals. This suggests the value of inquiry by academic leadership in exploring and understanding what success is from the individual faculty perspective. This may enhance the alignment among personal definitions, organizational values, and, ultimately, sustainable, successful careers.

Disclosure: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

The field of hospital medicine (HM) is rapidly expanding in the areas of clinical medicine, administration, and quality improvement (QI).¹ Emerging with this growth is a gap in the traditional internal medicine (IM) training and skills needed to be effective in HM.^1,2 These skills include clinical and nonclinical aptitudes, such as process improvement, health care economics, and leadership.^1-3 However, resident education on these topics must compete with other required curricular content in IM residency training.^2,4 Few IM residencies offer focused HM training that emphasizes key components of successful HM careers.^3,5

Within the past decade, designated HM tracks within IM residency programs have been proposed as a potential solution. Initially, calls for such tracks focused on gaps in the clinical competencies required of hospitalists.¹ Tracks have since evolved to also include skills required to drive high-value care, process improvement, and scholarship. Designated HM tracks address these areas through greater breadth of curricula, additional time for reflection, participation in group projects, and active application to clinical care.⁴ We conducted a study to identify themes that could inform the ongoing evolution of dedicated HM tracks.

Programs were initially identified through communication among professional networks. The phrases hospital medicine residency track and internal medicine residency hospitalist track were used in broader Google searches, as there is no database of such tracks. Searches were performed quarterly during the 2015–2016 academic year. The top 20 hits were manually filtered to identify tracks affiliated with major academic centers. IM residency program websites provided basic information for programs with tracks. We excluded tracks focused entirely on QI⁶ because, though a crucial part of HM, QI training alone is probably insufficient for preparing residents for success as hospitalists on residency completion. Similarly, IM residencies with stand-alone HM clinical rotations without longitudinal HM curricula were excluded.

Semistructured interviews with track directors were conducted by e-mail or telephone for all tracks except one, the details of which are published.⁷ We tabulated data and reviewed qualitative information to identify themes among the different tracks. As this study did not involve human participants, Institutional Review Board approval was not needed.

We identified 11 HM residency training programs at major academic centers across the United States: Cleveland Clinic, Stanford University, Tulane University, University of California Davis, University of California Irvine, University of Colorado, University of Kentucky, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wake Forest University (Table 1). We reviewed the websites of about 10 other programs, but none suggested existence of a track. Additional programs contacted reported no current track.

Track Participants and Structure

HM tracks mainly target third-year residents (Table 1). Some extend into the second year of residency, and 4 have opportunities for intern involvement, including a separate match number at Colorado. Tracks accept up to 12 residents per class. Two programs, at Colorado and Virginia, are part of IM programs in which all residents belong to a track (eg, HM, primary care, research).

HM track structures vary widely and are heavily influenced by the content delivery platforms of their IM residency programs. Several HM track directors emphasized the importance of fitting into existing educational frameworks to ensure access to residents and to minimize the burden of participation. Four programs deliver the bulk of their nonclinical content in dedicated blocks; 6 others use brief recurring sessions to deliver smaller aliquots longitudinally (Table 1). The number of protected hours for content delivery ranges from 10 to more than 40 annually. All tracks use multiple content delivery modes, including didactic sessions and journal clubs. Four tracks employ panel discussions to explore career options within HM. Several also use online platforms, including discussions, readings, and modules.

Quality Improvement

The vast majority of curricula prominently feature experiential QI project involvement (Table 2). These mentored longitudinal projects allow applied delivery of content, such as QI methods and management skills. Four tracks use material from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.⁸ Several also offer dedicated QI rotations that immerse residents in ongoing QI efforts.

Institutional partnerships support these initiatives at several sites. The Minnesota track is a joint venture of the university and Regions Hospital, a nonprofit community hospital. The Virginia track positions HM residents to lead university-wide interdisciplinary QI teams. For project support, the Colorado and Kentucky tracks partner with local QI resources—the Institute for Healthcare Quality, Safety, and Efficiency at Colorado and the Office of Value and Innovation in Healthcare Delivery at Kentucky.

Health Care Economics and Value

Many programs leverage the rapidly growing emphasis on health care “value” as an opportunity for synergy between IM programs and HM tracks. Examples include involving residents in efforts to improve documentation or didactic instruction on topics such as health care finance. The New Mexico and Wake Forest tracks offer elective rotations on health care economics. Several track directors mentioned successfully expanding curricula on health care value from the HM track into IM residency programs at large, providing a measurable service to the residency programs while ensuring content delivery and freeing up additional time for track activities.

Scholarship and Career Development

Most programs provide targeted career development for residents. Six tracks provide sessions on job procurement skills, such as curriculum vitae preparation and interviewing (Table 2). Many also provide content on venues for disseminating scholarly activity. The Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Tulane programs feature content on abstract and poster creation. Leadership development is addressed in several tracks through dedicated track activities or participation in discrete, outside-track events. Specifically, Colorado offers a leadership track for residents interested in hospital administration, Cleveland has a leadership journal club, Wake Forest enrolls HM residents in leadership training available through the university, and Minnesota sends residents to the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Leadership Academy (Table 2).

Clinical Rotations

Almost all tracks include a clinical rotation, typically pairing residents directly with hospitalist attendings to encourage autonomy and mentorship. Several also offer elective rotations in various disciplines within HM (Table 2). The Kentucky and Virginia tracks incorporate working with advanced practice providers into their practicums. The Cleveland, Minnesota, Tulane, and Virginia tracks offer HM rotations in community hospitals or postacute settings.

HM rotations also pair clinical experiences with didactic education on relevant topics (eg, billing and coding). The Cleveland, Minnesota, and Virginia tracks developed clinical rotations reflecting the common 7-on and 7-off schedule with nonclinical obligations, such as seminars linking specific content to clinical experiences, during nonclinical time.

Our investigation into the current state of HM training found that HM track curricula focus largely on QI, health care economics, and professional development. This focus likely developed in response to hospitalists’ increasing engagement in related endeavors. HM tracks have dynamic and variable structures, reflecting an evolving field and the need to fit into existing IM residency program structures. Similarly, the content covered in HM tracks is tightly linked to perceived opportunities within IM residency curricula. The heterogeneity of content suggests the breadth and ambiguity of necessary competencies for aspiring hospitalists. One of the 11 tracks has not had any residents enroll within the past few years—a testament to the continued effort necessary to sustain such tracks, including curricular updates and recruiting. Conversely, many programs now share track content with the larger IM residency program, suggesting HM tracks may be near the forefront of medical education in some areas.

Our study had several limitations. As we are unaware of any databases of HM tracks, we discussed tracks with professional contacts, performed Internet searches, and reviewed IM residency program websites. Our search, however, was not exhaustive; despite our best efforts, we may have missed or mischaracterized some track offerings. Nevertheless, we think that our analysis represents the first thorough compilation of HM tracks and that it will be useful to institutions seeking to create or enhance HM-specific training.

As the field continues to evolve, we are optimistic about the future of HM training. We suspect that HM residency training tracks will continue to expand. More work is needed so these tracks can adjust to the changing HM and IM residency program landscapes and supply well-trained physicians for the HM workforce.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank track directors Alpesh Amin, David Gugliotti, Rick Hilger, Karnjit Johl, Nasir Majeed, Georgia McIntosh, Charles Pizanis, and Jeff Wiese for making this study possible.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

The field of hospital medicine (HM) is rapidly expanding in the areas of clinical medicine, administration, and quality improvement (QI).¹ Emerging with this growth is a gap in the traditional internal medicine (IM) training and skills needed to be effective in HM.^1,2 These skills include clinical and nonclinical aptitudes, such as process improvement, health care economics, and leadership.^1-3 However, resident education on these topics must compete with other required curricular content in IM residency training.^2,4 Few IM residencies offer focused HM training that emphasizes key components of successful HM careers.^3,5

Within the past decade, designated HM tracks within IM residency programs have been proposed as a potential solution. Initially, calls for such tracks focused on gaps in the clinical competencies required of hospitalists.¹ Tracks have since evolved to also include skills required to drive high-value care, process improvement, and scholarship. Designated HM tracks address these areas through greater breadth of curricula, additional time for reflection, participation in group projects, and active application to clinical care.⁴ We conducted a study to identify themes that could inform the ongoing evolution of dedicated HM tracks.

Programs were initially identified through communication among professional networks. The phrases hospital medicine residency track and internal medicine residency hospitalist track were used in broader Google searches, as there is no database of such tracks. Searches were performed quarterly during the 2015–2016 academic year. The top 20 hits were manually filtered to identify tracks affiliated with major academic centers. IM residency program websites provided basic information for programs with tracks. We excluded tracks focused entirely on QI⁶ because, though a crucial part of HM, QI training alone is probably insufficient for preparing residents for success as hospitalists on residency completion. Similarly, IM residencies with stand-alone HM clinical rotations without longitudinal HM curricula were excluded.

Semistructured interviews with track directors were conducted by e-mail or telephone for all tracks except one, the details of which are published.⁷ We tabulated data and reviewed qualitative information to identify themes among the different tracks. As this study did not involve human participants, Institutional Review Board approval was not needed.

We identified 11 HM residency training programs at major academic centers across the United States: Cleveland Clinic, Stanford University, Tulane University, University of California Davis, University of California Irvine, University of Colorado, University of Kentucky, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wake Forest University (Table 1). We reviewed the websites of about 10 other programs, but none suggested existence of a track. Additional programs contacted reported no current track.

Track Participants and Structure

HM tracks mainly target third-year residents (Table 1). Some extend into the second year of residency, and 4 have opportunities for intern involvement, including a separate match number at Colorado. Tracks accept up to 12 residents per class. Two programs, at Colorado and Virginia, are part of IM programs in which all residents belong to a track (eg, HM, primary care, research).

HM track structures vary widely and are heavily influenced by the content delivery platforms of their IM residency programs. Several HM track directors emphasized the importance of fitting into existing educational frameworks to ensure access to residents and to minimize the burden of participation. Four programs deliver the bulk of their nonclinical content in dedicated blocks; 6 others use brief recurring sessions to deliver smaller aliquots longitudinally (Table 1). The number of protected hours for content delivery ranges from 10 to more than 40 annually. All tracks use multiple content delivery modes, including didactic sessions and journal clubs. Four tracks employ panel discussions to explore career options within HM. Several also use online platforms, including discussions, readings, and modules.

Quality Improvement

The vast majority of curricula prominently feature experiential QI project involvement (Table 2). These mentored longitudinal projects allow applied delivery of content, such as QI methods and management skills. Four tracks use material from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.⁸ Several also offer dedicated QI rotations that immerse residents in ongoing QI efforts.

Institutional partnerships support these initiatives at several sites. The Minnesota track is a joint venture of the university and Regions Hospital, a nonprofit community hospital. The Virginia track positions HM residents to lead university-wide interdisciplinary QI teams. For project support, the Colorado and Kentucky tracks partner with local QI resources—the Institute for Healthcare Quality, Safety, and Efficiency at Colorado and the Office of Value and Innovation in Healthcare Delivery at Kentucky.

Health Care Economics and Value

Many programs leverage the rapidly growing emphasis on health care “value” as an opportunity for synergy between IM programs and HM tracks. Examples include involving residents in efforts to improve documentation or didactic instruction on topics such as health care finance. The New Mexico and Wake Forest tracks offer elective rotations on health care economics. Several track directors mentioned successfully expanding curricula on health care value from the HM track into IM residency programs at large, providing a measurable service to the residency programs while ensuring content delivery and freeing up additional time for track activities.

Scholarship and Career Development

Most programs provide targeted career development for residents. Six tracks provide sessions on job procurement skills, such as curriculum vitae preparation and interviewing (Table 2). Many also provide content on venues for disseminating scholarly activity. The Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Tulane programs feature content on abstract and poster creation. Leadership development is addressed in several tracks through dedicated track activities or participation in discrete, outside-track events. Specifically, Colorado offers a leadership track for residents interested in hospital administration, Cleveland has a leadership journal club, Wake Forest enrolls HM residents in leadership training available through the university, and Minnesota sends residents to the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Leadership Academy (Table 2).

Clinical Rotations

Almost all tracks include a clinical rotation, typically pairing residents directly with hospitalist attendings to encourage autonomy and mentorship. Several also offer elective rotations in various disciplines within HM (Table 2). The Kentucky and Virginia tracks incorporate working with advanced practice providers into their practicums. The Cleveland, Minnesota, Tulane, and Virginia tracks offer HM rotations in community hospitals or postacute settings.

HM rotations also pair clinical experiences with didactic education on relevant topics (eg, billing and coding). The Cleveland, Minnesota, and Virginia tracks developed clinical rotations reflecting the common 7-on and 7-off schedule with nonclinical obligations, such as seminars linking specific content to clinical experiences, during nonclinical time.

Our investigation into the current state of HM training found that HM track curricula focus largely on QI, health care economics, and professional development. This focus likely developed in response to hospitalists’ increasing engagement in related endeavors. HM tracks have dynamic and variable structures, reflecting an evolving field and the need to fit into existing IM residency program structures. Similarly, the content covered in HM tracks is tightly linked to perceived opportunities within IM residency curricula. The heterogeneity of content suggests the breadth and ambiguity of necessary competencies for aspiring hospitalists. One of the 11 tracks has not had any residents enroll within the past few years—a testament to the continued effort necessary to sustain such tracks, including curricular updates and recruiting. Conversely, many programs now share track content with the larger IM residency program, suggesting HM tracks may be near the forefront of medical education in some areas.

Our study had several limitations. As we are unaware of any databases of HM tracks, we discussed tracks with professional contacts, performed Internet searches, and reviewed IM residency program websites. Our search, however, was not exhaustive; despite our best efforts, we may have missed or mischaracterized some track offerings. Nevertheless, we think that our analysis represents the first thorough compilation of HM tracks and that it will be useful to institutions seeking to create or enhance HM-specific training.

As the field continues to evolve, we are optimistic about the future of HM training. We suspect that HM residency training tracks will continue to expand. More work is needed so these tracks can adjust to the changing HM and IM residency program landscapes and supply well-trained physicians for the HM workforce.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank track directors Alpesh Amin, David Gugliotti, Rick Hilger, Karnjit Johl, Nasir Majeed, Georgia McIntosh, Charles Pizanis, and Jeff Wiese for making this study possible.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

The field of hospital medicine (HM) is rapidly expanding in the areas of clinical medicine, administration, and quality improvement (QI).¹ Emerging with this growth is a gap in the traditional internal medicine (IM) training and skills needed to be effective in HM.^1,2 These skills include clinical and nonclinical aptitudes, such as process improvement, health care economics, and leadership.^1-3 However, resident education on these topics must compete with other required curricular content in IM residency training.^2,4 Few IM residencies offer focused HM training that emphasizes key components of successful HM careers.^3,5

Within the past decade, designated HM tracks within IM residency programs have been proposed as a potential solution. Initially, calls for such tracks focused on gaps in the clinical competencies required of hospitalists.¹ Tracks have since evolved to also include skills required to drive high-value care, process improvement, and scholarship. Designated HM tracks address these areas through greater breadth of curricula, additional time for reflection, participation in group projects, and active application to clinical care.⁴ We conducted a study to identify themes that could inform the ongoing evolution of dedicated HM tracks.

Programs were initially identified through communication among professional networks. The phrases hospital medicine residency track and internal medicine residency hospitalist track were used in broader Google searches, as there is no database of such tracks. Searches were performed quarterly during the 2015–2016 academic year. The top 20 hits were manually filtered to identify tracks affiliated with major academic centers. IM residency program websites provided basic information for programs with tracks. We excluded tracks focused entirely on QI⁶ because, though a crucial part of HM, QI training alone is probably insufficient for preparing residents for success as hospitalists on residency completion. Similarly, IM residencies with stand-alone HM clinical rotations without longitudinal HM curricula were excluded.

Semistructured interviews with track directors were conducted by e-mail or telephone for all tracks except one, the details of which are published.⁷ We tabulated data and reviewed qualitative information to identify themes among the different tracks. As this study did not involve human participants, Institutional Review Board approval was not needed.

We identified 11 HM residency training programs at major academic centers across the United States: Cleveland Clinic, Stanford University, Tulane University, University of California Davis, University of California Irvine, University of Colorado, University of Kentucky, University of Minnesota, University of New Mexico, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wake Forest University (Table 1). We reviewed the websites of about 10 other programs, but none suggested existence of a track. Additional programs contacted reported no current track.

Track Participants and Structure

HM tracks mainly target third-year residents (Table 1). Some extend into the second year of residency, and 4 have opportunities for intern involvement, including a separate match number at Colorado. Tracks accept up to 12 residents per class. Two programs, at Colorado and Virginia, are part of IM programs in which all residents belong to a track (eg, HM, primary care, research).

HM track structures vary widely and are heavily influenced by the content delivery platforms of their IM residency programs. Several HM track directors emphasized the importance of fitting into existing educational frameworks to ensure access to residents and to minimize the burden of participation. Four programs deliver the bulk of their nonclinical content in dedicated blocks; 6 others use brief recurring sessions to deliver smaller aliquots longitudinally (Table 1). The number of protected hours for content delivery ranges from 10 to more than 40 annually. All tracks use multiple content delivery modes, including didactic sessions and journal clubs. Four tracks employ panel discussions to explore career options within HM. Several also use online platforms, including discussions, readings, and modules.

Quality Improvement

The vast majority of curricula prominently feature experiential QI project involvement (Table 2). These mentored longitudinal projects allow applied delivery of content, such as QI methods and management skills. Four tracks use material from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.⁸ Several also offer dedicated QI rotations that immerse residents in ongoing QI efforts.

Institutional partnerships support these initiatives at several sites. The Minnesota track is a joint venture of the university and Regions Hospital, a nonprofit community hospital. The Virginia track positions HM residents to lead university-wide interdisciplinary QI teams. For project support, the Colorado and Kentucky tracks partner with local QI resources—the Institute for Healthcare Quality, Safety, and Efficiency at Colorado and the Office of Value and Innovation in Healthcare Delivery at Kentucky.

Health Care Economics and Value

Many programs leverage the rapidly growing emphasis on health care “value” as an opportunity for synergy between IM programs and HM tracks. Examples include involving residents in efforts to improve documentation or didactic instruction on topics such as health care finance. The New Mexico and Wake Forest tracks offer elective rotations on health care economics. Several track directors mentioned successfully expanding curricula on health care value from the HM track into IM residency programs at large, providing a measurable service to the residency programs while ensuring content delivery and freeing up additional time for track activities.

Scholarship and Career Development

Most programs provide targeted career development for residents. Six tracks provide sessions on job procurement skills, such as curriculum vitae preparation and interviewing (Table 2). Many also provide content on venues for disseminating scholarly activity. The Colorado, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Tulane programs feature content on abstract and poster creation. Leadership development is addressed in several tracks through dedicated track activities or participation in discrete, outside-track events. Specifically, Colorado offers a leadership track for residents interested in hospital administration, Cleveland has a leadership journal club, Wake Forest enrolls HM residents in leadership training available through the university, and Minnesota sends residents to the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Leadership Academy (Table 2).

Clinical Rotations

Almost all tracks include a clinical rotation, typically pairing residents directly with hospitalist attendings to encourage autonomy and mentorship. Several also offer elective rotations in various disciplines within HM (Table 2). The Kentucky and Virginia tracks incorporate working with advanced practice providers into their practicums. The Cleveland, Minnesota, Tulane, and Virginia tracks offer HM rotations in community hospitals or postacute settings.

HM rotations also pair clinical experiences with didactic education on relevant topics (eg, billing and coding). The Cleveland, Minnesota, and Virginia tracks developed clinical rotations reflecting the common 7-on and 7-off schedule with nonclinical obligations, such as seminars linking specific content to clinical experiences, during nonclinical time.

Our investigation into the current state of HM training found that HM track curricula focus largely on QI, health care economics, and professional development. This focus likely developed in response to hospitalists’ increasing engagement in related endeavors. HM tracks have dynamic and variable structures, reflecting an evolving field and the need to fit into existing IM residency program structures. Similarly, the content covered in HM tracks is tightly linked to perceived opportunities within IM residency curricula. The heterogeneity of content suggests the breadth and ambiguity of necessary competencies for aspiring hospitalists. One of the 11 tracks has not had any residents enroll within the past few years—a testament to the continued effort necessary to sustain such tracks, including curricular updates and recruiting. Conversely, many programs now share track content with the larger IM residency program, suggesting HM tracks may be near the forefront of medical education in some areas.

Our study had several limitations. As we are unaware of any databases of HM tracks, we discussed tracks with professional contacts, performed Internet searches, and reviewed IM residency program websites. Our search, however, was not exhaustive; despite our best efforts, we may have missed or mischaracterized some track offerings. Nevertheless, we think that our analysis represents the first thorough compilation of HM tracks and that it will be useful to institutions seeking to create or enhance HM-specific training.

As the field continues to evolve, we are optimistic about the future of HM training. We suspect that HM residency training tracks will continue to expand. More work is needed so these tracks can adjust to the changing HM and IM residency program landscapes and supply well-trained physicians for the HM workforce.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank track directors Alpesh Amin, David Gugliotti, Rick Hilger, Karnjit Johl, Nasir Majeed, Georgia McIntosh, Charles Pizanis, and Jeff Wiese for making this study possible.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

With my team, I use whiteboards as a tool to enhance communication: 1) I introduce myself and my team members, then write our names on the whiteboard paired with an explanation of my role as the attending physician for the hospital medicine service; 2) on a daily basis, I ask the patient and family/support what their primary concerns and goals are and write those on the whiteboard; and 3) I invite the patient and family/support to use the whiteboard to write additional concerns or questions as they arise.

Why I Do It

Hospitals are confusing places. One of our key roles as hospitalists is to coordinate and clarify all of the moving pieces and to communicate clearly to patients and their family that there is someone doing that work on their behalf. The whiteboard can help to accomplish that and to visually indicate “reflective listening.” If I ask patients what their concerns and goals are on a daily basis, I can better address them, and writing those on the whiteboard is a way to visually let patients know I have heard them—and heard them accurately. Finally, as we know from experience at our institution, when patients are invited to write on the whiteboard, they are likely to do so and will often write important information that hasn’t come up during routine rounding.

How I Do It

The key to effectiveness is to build whiteboard use into the clinical workflow and patient conversation rather than create an extra task to complete. I have developed a routine using the whiteboard that is more or less the same for every patient.

Also, whiteboard design can influence the use of the whiteboard as a communication tool. I favor designs that have few prescriptive boxes and more space for writing. I have found whiteboards labeled with a “What are your goals?” section to be helpful.

Patrick Kneeland, MD, is medical director for patient and provider experience and director of the Excellence in Communication Curriculum, University of Colorado Hospital and Clinics.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

With my team, I use whiteboards as a tool to enhance communication: 1) I introduce myself and my team members, then write our names on the whiteboard paired with an explanation of my role as the attending physician for the hospital medicine service; 2) on a daily basis, I ask the patient and family/support what their primary concerns and goals are and write those on the whiteboard; and 3) I invite the patient and family/support to use the whiteboard to write additional concerns or questions as they arise.

Why I Do It

Hospitals are confusing places. One of our key roles as hospitalists is to coordinate and clarify all of the moving pieces and to communicate clearly to patients and their family that there is someone doing that work on their behalf. The whiteboard can help to accomplish that and to visually indicate “reflective listening.” If I ask patients what their concerns and goals are on a daily basis, I can better address them, and writing those on the whiteboard is a way to visually let patients know I have heard them—and heard them accurately. Finally, as we know from experience at our institution, when patients are invited to write on the whiteboard, they are likely to do so and will often write important information that hasn’t come up during routine rounding.

How I Do It

The key to effectiveness is to build whiteboard use into the clinical workflow and patient conversation rather than create an extra task to complete. I have developed a routine using the whiteboard that is more or less the same for every patient.

Also, whiteboard design can influence the use of the whiteboard as a communication tool. I favor designs that have few prescriptive boxes and more space for writing. I have found whiteboards labeled with a “What are your goals?” section to be helpful.

Patrick Kneeland, MD, is medical director for patient and provider experience and director of the Excellence in Communication Curriculum, University of Colorado Hospital and Clinics.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

With my team, I use whiteboards as a tool to enhance communication: 1) I introduce myself and my team members, then write our names on the whiteboard paired with an explanation of my role as the attending physician for the hospital medicine service; 2) on a daily basis, I ask the patient and family/support what their primary concerns and goals are and write those on the whiteboard; and 3) I invite the patient and family/support to use the whiteboard to write additional concerns or questions as they arise.

Why I Do It

Hospitals are confusing places. One of our key roles as hospitalists is to coordinate and clarify all of the moving pieces and to communicate clearly to patients and their family that there is someone doing that work on their behalf. The whiteboard can help to accomplish that and to visually indicate “reflective listening.” If I ask patients what their concerns and goals are on a daily basis, I can better address them, and writing those on the whiteboard is a way to visually let patients know I have heard them—and heard them accurately. Finally, as we know from experience at our institution, when patients are invited to write on the whiteboard, they are likely to do so and will often write important information that hasn’t come up during routine rounding.

How I Do It

The key to effectiveness is to build whiteboard use into the clinical workflow and patient conversation rather than create an extra task to complete. I have developed a routine using the whiteboard that is more or less the same for every patient.

Also, whiteboard design can influence the use of the whiteboard as a communication tool. I favor designs that have few prescriptive boxes and more space for writing. I have found whiteboards labeled with a “What are your goals?” section to be helpful.

Patrick Kneeland, MD, is medical director for patient and provider experience and director of the Excellence in Communication Curriculum, University of Colorado Hospital and Clinics.